You could say this about any single issue. Feel free to present one, and I'd be glad to use very similar wording that would amount to 'the fraction that care and actually base a presidential vote on it has to be much smaller than some folks seem to believe. The issue is simply too small for a presidential election.'
Seriously, pick an issue, any issue.
Even if you picked one that would be 'large' by most standards, I'd argue (all day) that it won't make a difference who is picked. Not really. Like 'national security' is good example. Or 'economy' is perhaps even better example. So, perhaps I wouldn't conclude with 'too small for a presidential election,' but surely would conclude (and argue) that too big / elusive for it to possibly matter who holds the white house.
This issue, thus far, in shared reality is a political hot potato and very partisan at the national level. At the state level, not so partisan or one sided. Pubs in some states are seemingly actively working against vaping/vapers. But at national level, it so far shows up as Dems working against vaping/vapers and Pubs making some noticeable motions to work for vaping/vapers.
That potentially matters, big time, for the presidential election.
It seems entirely reasonable to presume that a conservative type president wouldn't favor an FDA that seeks to shut down / greatly curtail a new market based on regulatory science. It's possible, as you are arguing, that it doesn't register on their radar and they let it slip by without ever mentioning what happened and why (vapers got screwed). But also seems very plausible that a Dem president would tout it as a very good thing that the FDA went in this direction to protect the children and because nicotine is so addictive (both lies).
What you are clearly neglecting, and which makes sense right now to do so, is the role that 'we the people' play in the upcoming elections with regards to vaping. Right now, you appear 'spot on' with idea that we vapers won't make a darn difference to what national presidential candidates consider as a possible avenue for them in their current political campaign. Yet, as I noted earlier this is primary season. This is really about taking all issues that are the standard bearer for your own party (all issues 25 years or older) and declaring whether you are moderate or extreme, according to your own party's measurement stick on those issues.
I can think of at least a half dozen issues that have come up in national political news within last 5 years that aren't even being whispered by any of the candidates right now. Thus possible to assert that none of them care about those issues. Highly unlikely that this is accurate, and far more likely that when it comes to pitting top dog for Dems against top dog for Pubs, that it will come up. Likely in a debate. Probably for the 'smaller issues' it'll be 3 minutes of a debate or less.
IMO, the reality is that what presidential candidates tend to emphasize is stuff that sheeple seems to care about greatly, but even that assertion I find highly questionable. It's far more likely that 'we the people' have issues that are 25 to 200 years old that we do have fairly firm opinions on, and that candidates for office can offer up assertions on that will make sense in a sound bite way, plus stick to what is commonly understood as facts. Though that becomes (highly debatable) when a) they don't stick to soundbite rhetoric or b) don't stick to commonly accepted facts, which then leads to voter confusion, possibly apathy.
With vaping, it is rather simple and has sound bite rhetoric, but really (really really) if the candidate is speaking to larger government role in lives of people or less of a role, they are speaking on this issue (indirectly). If they have lobbyists from BP, that will impact this issue. If they have history with anti-smoking legislation and don't stipulate that at all, that will impact this issue.
Being the betting person I am, I'd go with around 20 to 1 odds that this comes up in national presidential politics before November 2016. I think it is semi likely, and certainly not out of the question. Part of me thinks it is more like 5 to 1 odds, but again, I'm a betting person, and if I were to put money on it, I'd want those kind of odds.
You (@aceswired) are presenting it like it is 10,000 to 1 odds. If you think of it in this vein, I would love to wager my $1 to your $10,000 on whether or not it comes up in any (explicit/direct) way among a presidential candidate before November 2016.
