The 2016 presidential race began with candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire taking questions from voters on a wide range of issues, such as foreign policy, college affordability, and immigration.

But in the last month, the campaigns have moved away from a discussion about the issues facing Americans, to the issues facing the candidates.

In one recent week, the back-and-forth between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was about who was racist — but not about racism. More recently the campaigns have pointed fingers about which candidate is healthier — but not about the future of the Affordable Care Act. There has been considerable conversation about how Clinton handled her e-mails — but virtually no talk about whether the National Security Agency should have access to everyone’s e-mails.

Chalk it up to another way this presidential election is breaking all the traditional political rules: This 2016 race isn’t about you, the voter; it’s about them, the candidates.

“I think of this campaign as another step further in the celebritization of American politics,’’ said Dan Schnur, director of the University of Southern California’s Unruh Institute of Politics and a former aide to Senator John McCain. “There is no question the trend continues to grow. The question is who is to blame for this: the candidates, the voters, or the media.’’

To be sure, personalities have always played a role in presidential politics. In the 1840 election, William Henry Harrison’s campaign tried to brand him as a battle hero with “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.’’ In 1952, “I like Ike,’’ was as much about personality as a slogan can get. From Willie Horton to the Swift Boat advertisements, the character of the candidates has often been called into question.

But here’s what is different in this election: More than ever, candidates are focused on tearing down their opponent’s likability without even the pretense of a policy-based argument about it. 

As both candidates prepare for the first debate in two weeks, those who study or work in the area of policy development are curious and concerned about the questions and discussion that could take place. Will Trump mention the size of his hands again? Will Clinton have a nickname retort when Trump calls her “Crooked Hillary?’’

The economy has rebounded, and there’s no looming war, leaving this election void of the kind of issue that dominated the 2004 or 2008 campaigns, said Wendy Schiller, the head of Brown University’s political science department.

“What is left that makes this election unique is that it involves a reality television star and a woman in the age of social media,’’ she said.

James Capretta, a health care expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said he fears that the general election debates will go the same way that the GOP primary debates did — terribly.

“The topics were superficial; a lot of the things candidates said were actually untrue and allowed to slide,’’ Capretta said. “The leading candidate had no real policy positions.’’

The Democratic presidential debates started a bit differently. There were substantial discussions over gun control and Wall Street reform, an issue that Temple University political science professor Sandra Suarez researches. She said that if Trump sticks to his position on repealing the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, there could be a real debate with Clinton, who supports the law.

“It remains to be seen, however, if these issues will become salient once again during the presidential debates, and if the discussion will reach the level of specificity it reached during the Democratic Party debates,’’ Suarez said. “I think that discussions about policy have been a casualty in this presidential election because Donald Trump’s policy positions are unclear, at best, or constantly changing, at worst.’’

But Trump’s populist approach may be transcending issues for a larger strategy. His supporters say they like Trump because he is not a politician and speaks for them — even if he doesn’t have a detailed trade policy, specifics on an immigration plan beyond a wall, or an announced plan on how he would “create jobs so fast.’’

And while Trump receives criticism from policy wonks, Democrats, and some voters for his lack of specifics, analysts say Clinton also gets some blame for the personality-driven atmosphere as well.

“For as much as Clinton has accomplished as a senator or as secretary of state, people associate her with scandal and controversy over the years, and it is something that gets more attention than her policy papers,’’ said Schiller, the Brown professor.

But a personality-driven campaign isn’t always such a bad thing. Schnur said that humans are “wired to respond to other people.’’

“Most voters aren’t looking to be able to predict exactly whether one candidate’s college plan is the best for their family, but they are looking to evaluate who they trust the most to push for the best plan,’’ Schnur said.

James Pindell can be reached at james.pindell@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jamespindell or subscribe to his daily e-mail update on the 2016 campaign at www.bostonglobe.com/groundgame.