Back in the dim and distant past of the year 2000 when George W. Bush was running against Al Gore, Jr., comedian Lewis Black had the following observation:
In my lifetime we've gone from Ike to G.W. Bush.
In my lifetime we've gone from JFK to Albert Gore.
If this is evolution, in a few years we're going to be voting for PLANTS!
Long, long before that, newspaper columnist Henry Louis Mencken said:
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
Ladies and gentlemen, this may be the election year for Phil O'Dendron.
(Edited to add the artwork of a reader)
Because no sane person with the necessary skill set is going to jump into that position. Think about it. Some certain percentage of the population is going to HATE you. Don’t care if you think about Obama, W, Clinton, or Trump. Their every move, every word, and every action is examined and considered. Worse those examining it, at least some, will do so while attributing the worse possible motivation to you are seeing it as the worst possible cause. Send in a SEAL team to rescue an American hostage and you must be trying to start a war. Don’t send in the team and you are a coward or have been b
Because no sane person with the necessary skill set is going to jump into that position. Think about it. Some certain percentage of the population is going to HATE you. Don’t care if you think about Obama, W, Clinton, or Trump. Their every move, every word, and every action is examined and considered. Worse those examining it, at least some, will do so while attributing the worse possible motivation to you are seeing it as the worst possible cause. Send in a SEAL team to rescue an American hostage and you must be trying to start a war. Don’t send in the team and you are a coward or have been bought by that country. Stutter a word or two and you have dementia. Struggle, at nearly 80 years old, to walk down a ramp and you have had a stroke of course.
You want to live your life under that scrutiny? Yet people do. Even consider the best of intentions. You believe the job is so vital and you are so clearly the best person to do it that you MUST do it. You owe a duty to your country. Great motivation right? I’m willing to do it, put up with everything, because it needs done and *I* need to do it. I’m not diagnosing any individual here but does that sound like a totally healthy mindset? You, and no one else in the country, are uniquely qualified and competent. So much so you will put yourself through the nonsense to do it.
No. No person with a tremendous skill set, already making plenty of money and on the verge of retirement, is going to do it. Physically look at the toll eight years took on both Obama, W, or Clinton. These were all men who took physical exercise seriously. The job punished them physically.
You're on the blue team or you're on the red team. You're going to vote this way on these subjects and that way on those subjects. You don't need any skills or intelligence. People don't want you to THINK about these subjects, for God's sake, when it comes time to vote just jump up and say yea or nay like you're supposed to, like the trained monkey that you are. Then get back to the one part of yo
You're on the blue team or you're on the red team. You're going to vote this way on these subjects and that way on those subjects. You don't need any skills or intelligence. People don't want you to THINK about these subjects, for God's sake, when it comes time to vote just jump up and say yea or nay like you're supposed to, like the trained monkey that you are. Then get back to the one part of your job you do care about, which is raising money for your re-election.
Inept politicians get to BE politicians because people voted them into office. As as long as things lik...
Because inspirational candidates are a rare thing.
Certainly 2016 didn't feature any. There was a good number of qualified, experienced candidates from both sides of the political spectrum but none that I'd call inspirational. Sanders came the closest with his refreshing honesty and sincerity, but that's not the same thing as inspirational.
There are candidates whose stories are inspirational but who are nevertheless not inspiring themselves. John McCain is an example, whose life story was something exceptional, but this did not translate into his persona; he was not inspiring in and of himself.
Because inspirational candidates are a rare thing.
Certainly 2016 didn't feature any. There was a good number of qualified, experienced candidates from both sides of the political spectrum but none that I'd call inspirational. Sanders came the closest with his refreshing honesty and sincerity, but that's not the same thing as inspirational.
There are candidates whose stories are inspirational but who are nevertheless not inspiring themselves. John McCain is an example, whose life story was something exceptional, but this did not translate into his persona; he was not inspiring in and of himself.
Truly inspiring candidates are rare. Obama, Reagan, Kennedy. Whether you agreed with their politics or not, you have to admit they were inspirational figures. Their frequency seems to be something generational. I'm not surprised there are none this time around.
I think in recent years, Republicans have had strong candidates and a good variety for primary voters to hear from and select from. In 2016, in addition to Mr. Trump, a very different personality who was an excellent president(*), there were Ben Carson, who became an effective cabinet secretary, Ted Cruz (the head full of facts debater) to start with. In 2024, the primary field likewise had strong selections with clearly known visions and ideas for primary voters to choose from. Democrats in recent years have been stuck mostly on tired old candidates. I’ve not followed the minor parties as wel
I think in recent years, Republicans have had strong candidates and a good variety for primary voters to hear from and select from. In 2016, in addition to Mr. Trump, a very different personality who was an excellent president(*), there were Ben Carson, who became an effective cabinet secretary, Ted Cruz (the head full of facts debater) to start with. In 2024, the primary field likewise had strong selections with clearly known visions and ideas for primary voters to choose from. Democrats in recent years have been stuck mostly on tired old candidates. I’ve not followed the minor parties as well as I did 20+ years ago, but when I did follow closely there were candidates who I consider some of the best in my lifetime running - and I had the chance to know a couple of them personally. I still remember in 1996 when C-Span sponsored a debate with 3 minor party candidates - agree or not with the candidates, there were so many ideas clearly stated and argued for than the bland Q&A sessions we get with major party candidates.
(*) Even with the Russia hoax used to partially disable the 2016 Trump administration, the facts are that we had very prosperous years driven by sensible tax changes, energy policy, and targeted changes in regulations. Plus we had 4 years of no new wars. Russia didn’t take more territory (like Croatia under Obama and the Ukraine war under Biden), and there was a major Middle East peace accord among nations interested in peace. Things were not perfect. Monopolies (which fund Democrats more than Republicans) continued to grow, and foreign interests continued buying more of America.
Has the US entered its late Soviet phase? The country is a gerontocracy led by ailing leaders and with a crisis of confidence in its dominant ideology; it is a flailing superpower suffering foreign humiliation (not least in Afghanistan); and its economic system struggles to meet the needs of many of its people. The similarities are a little uncanny.
There are, of course, clear differences too. The US is a democracy, albeit one severely compromised by wealthy vested interests and concerted rightwing efforts to weaken voting rights, and it is a racially diverse union of states, rather than an uns
Has the US entered its late Soviet phase? The country is a gerontocracy led by ailing leaders and with a crisis of confidence in its dominant ideology; it is a flailing superpower suffering foreign humiliation (not least in Afghanistan); and its economic system struggles to meet the needs of many of its people. The similarities are a little uncanny.
There are, of course, clear differences too. The US is a democracy, albeit one severely compromised by wealthy vested interests and concerted rightwing efforts to weaken voting rights, and it is a racially diverse union of states, rather than an unstable federation of nations. But, crucially, if Joe Biden is a Leonid Brezhnev or one of his two short-lived elderly successors, then is no Mikhail Gorbachev: he is more of an American Vladimir Putin.
The attempted assassination of Trump marks a further descent into the darkness. Earlier this year, a poll found that more than a third of Americans believe is likely, with another 13% opting for “very likely”. In 2021, a leading Canadian political scientist and scholar of violent conflict the weakening of US democratic institutions over decades could lead to the whole system’s collapse by 2025, leading to extreme violent instability and a rightwing tyranny prevailing by 2030. A decade ago, such prophecies would have seemed outlandish, deranged even. Now only the foolishly complacent would dismiss them as lying outside the realms of plausibility.
The liberal order is imploding. But just a quarter of a century ago, under Bill Clinton’s presidency, many considered it bulletproof. The US was drunk on its recent and the political and economic order it extolled was described as the final stage of human development by Francis Fukuyama in The image of an at-ease, amiable US was projected to the world in cultural exports ranging from Friends to The West Wing, or as humanity’s benign protector in Independence Day. Globally, liberal democracies appeared to be becoming the norm, not besieged exceptions. Sure, the arrival of George W Bush, the horror of 9/11 and the killing fields of Iraq were traumatic for progressive Americans, bookended by the most severe crisis of capitalism since the Great Depression. But Barack Obama seemed to wash those sins away. He was the first black president, telegenic and with a confident charm: central casting could not have produced a more ideal candidate for the sensibilities of the liberal American.
Yet nine decades after the publication of, Sinclair Lewis’s dystopian novel about a fictional fascist dictator seizing power in the US, the scenario it imagines seems less far-fetched than at any other point in the 250-year existence of the American republic. Then, Lewis looked to Nazi Germany as a warning: his wife was the journalist Dorothy Thompson, who had interviewed Adolf Hitler and subsequently been expelled by his regime. Today, the authoritarian model can be observed in Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. Fidesz was a centre-right party that became radicalised in power, and since then has deployed anti-migrant hysteria to build support, demonised opponents as unpatriotic foreign puppets in its favour and trashed judicial independence, building what Orbán describes as an “illiberal democracy”. It is a trajectory perhaps most strikingly pioneered by Putin: you keep the trappings of democracy, with the substance gradually rotted away. Shortly before the assassination attempt, who has endorsed the Republican presidential nominee – at Mar-a-Lago.
Democratic culture in the US is stronger and more embedded than in Hungary. But Trump is even more demagogic than Orbán, with a more extreme and motivated grassroots base. Furthermore, he is more vengeful and radicalised than ever – the relative moderates in his entourage have at his plans for the presidency. The supreme court has a conservative majority, and a Trump presidential victory could easily be accompanied by Republican victory in both houses of Congress, meaning precious few checks and balances. Trump has floated cancelling the and jailing his and his promise only to be a dictator on (and not after) is hardly reassuring.
Trump’s return to the White House is likely to be met with a response on the streets. Any such protests could be used as a pretext to impose authoritarian measures, perhaps even Trump reportedly told the top US military leader to in 2020. You can see how it could spiral. We don’t yet know the motive of Trump’s suspected shooter, but the episode will be used by Republicans to shut down scrutiny of Trump and the danger he poses to the republic on the grounds that it is inciting further violence against him. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of extremist violence in the US is perpetrated .
How did it all go wrong? The truth is the US system has long been dysfunctional, with Democratic elites partly to blame. When Trump came to power, the had about the same purchasing power as it did four decades earlier. Most gains had been accrued by top earners. Such stagnation breeds pessimism, ripe for demagogic exploitation. Democrats failed to transform this broken order.
Trump’s surge is also a racist backlash, but it is linked to the failure of Democratic economic policy. Republicans have assiduously exploited and promoted a white backlash ever since the civil rights movement of the 1960s, deploying racist dog whistles which only escalated under Obama. But the Democrats’ approach to social reform did not help. Corporate taxes were slashed from the 1960s onwards, while the tax burden on middle-income Americans between the mid-1950s and 1980. Social programmes targeted at poorer Americans were therefore easily demonised as being paid for by blue-collar workers, breaking down the solidarity of the traditional Democratic coalition. That resentment was easily and crudely racialised as undeserving poor black America being subsidised by hardworking white people.
The foreign military ventures of Democratic elites such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden – principally in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Libya – were also characterised by bloody turmoil and international humiliation. Today, Biden has infuriated natural Democratic voters and morally disgraced the US globally with complicity in Israel’s genocidal rampage. Republicans are enthusiastic about their nominee:
A superpower in crisis both at home and abroad risks some form of reckoning, as the Soviet leadership discovered. Across the west, the cordon sanitaire between the centre-right and what lies beyond has collapsed: a Trump victory will embolden Europe’s surging far-right movements. The liberal order crumbles before us: we have barely begun to contemplate what lies beyond it.
“Boring” is way down on the list of terms that I’d choose to describe Trump and I seriously dislike the guy. I can see it being used for Biden, but mostly as a contrast to Trump. So…
“Boring” is way down on the list of terms that I’d choose to describe Trump and I seriously dislike the guy. I can see it being used for Biden, but mostly as a contrast to Trump. So…
Joe isn’t, C’mon, man!lol!!!
I think we have and do. What has happened it those seeking to choose someone is basing on their level of criteria which as so different than even four years ago.
I remember when I was studying political science, I felt I was getting hit over the head with one of my Professors constantly making us analyze the Nixon-Kennedy Television Debates. It turns out that it was important. It was a turning point for American Politics. This new medium, television, brought the candidates into the home for people to see and hear and make decisions. They didn’t have to drive to an “I like Ike” (Referring to Pre
I think we have and do. What has happened it those seeking to choose someone is basing on their level of criteria which as so different than even four years ago.
I remember when I was studying political science, I felt I was getting hit over the head with one of my Professors constantly making us analyze the Nixon-Kennedy Television Debates. It turns out that it was important. It was a turning point for American Politics. This new medium, television, brought the candidates into the home for people to see and hear and make decisions. They didn’t have to drive to an “I like Ike” (Referring to President Eisenhower and his slogan)…rally when it came to town to get an idea of what the candidate was like. And if the candidate didn’t come to your town, you had to rely on newspapers, etc. to make a decision. But TV was like “being there” and it gave birth to something else as a voting factor… ‘charisma’. You see, Nixon had a cold and was seating like CRAZY under those hot lights whereas Kennedy was cool, calm, collective. It showed.
Since then, TV has become a major criteria in candidates campaigns. But it expanded from Debates to commercials — and political campaign commercials were POWERFUL. (It’s in the history books how LBJ’s “Daisy” ad against Barry Goldwater’s commercial really ruined Goldwater’s chances as well as the KKK Ad LBJ did against him —, where President Ronald Reagan’s “Bear” commercial was genius. that hardly no one at that time really got…except Wall Street Investors.) Now we’re in the technology age. TV has given way to…the Internet and Streaming and they are FAR more influential than TV. HDTV, Photos, gaming systems…can make someone look 200 years old when they are only 20 and can put them in places they have never been. Lights, shadow, color, angles can “sell” you a candidate. What celebrities sued for 30 years ago as ‘slander’ is now, ‘news’. But even with all that, people choose what criteria they seek in a candidate.
Running for President is a hard, expensive and thankless thing to do. People donate money to their candidates in hope that they will win—but something happens and they fall short, or something happens and they keep going. For this election there has been talk about how this campaign is more media driven than before and media led. There is no doubt the Republicans had about 20 people who wanted the job, but the candidate that prevailed wasn’t the most qualified..but the loudest. And he intensified, and blew and now..believing his own press as others believe with him. That may be their criteria.
I also think that in this election, the VP Candidates are SO important. Look at them, they are two, very informed, professional, polished, knowledgeable politicians. Pence and Kaine might as well be running too. For many judging on that criteria, it will be the “tipping scale” to absolutely help get their bosses into the White House.
They are the best candidates. It doesn't mean they will make the best president. The skill set in running for president is different than that of governing from the Oval Office. To make a baseball analogy, it's why pitchers are usually bad hitters - these are two different skill sets.
There are very few people who can ever become a candidate. You must be very famous or at least have an overwhelming personality capable of attracting a huge amount of attention. You must be wealthy or capable of getting people to open theit wallets to the tune of a billion dollars. You can't have too many skeleton
They are the best candidates. It doesn't mean they will make the best president. The skill set in running for president is different than that of governing from the Oval Office. To make a baseball analogy, it's why pitchers are usually bad hitters - these are two different skill sets.
There are very few people who can ever become a candidate. You must be very famous or at least have an overwhelming personality capable of attracting a huge amount of attention. You must be wealthy or capable of getting people to open theit wallets to the tune of a billion dollars. You can't have too many skeletons in your closet, although Trump and Clinton violate that rule. You have to be willing to live in a fishbowl and give up all sense of a normal life for you and your family. You have to be willing to put up with tens of millions of people hating your guts. You might have to be willing to use military force, even nuclear weapons and risk becoming a war criminal in the eyes of most of the world. You must have a crazy large ego. Not many billionaires are willing to put up with those things.
It is a rare confluence of circumstances that must occur to get the nomination. Almost by definition you have to have a meteoric rise in your career and catch lightning in a bottle. It is rarer still to have the skills necessary to be a good president.
Obama is a good illustration of be a candidate and a good president. His career exploded. In a relatively short time he went from community organizer to the State Senate to the US Senate to president. This particular path really hadn't happened before. Obama had attributes that were extremely attractive to wealthy Democratic contributors. He was highly educated, articulate and charismatic in a low key way. He was moderately liberal. He had no major skeletons in his closet, especially since he had already written an autobiography. Not least, Obama is African-American, which was fresh and exciting for Democrats, especially compared to his chief rival, Hillary Clinton. This was an historic candidate, which differentiated him from his competition.
In Obama’s case, the same attributes which made him an attractive Democratic candidate also served him well in the White House. Thoughtful and intelligent, he didn't make many unforced errors. His caution was both a positive and a negative. His knowledge of how government works helped get through major legislation as well as keeping the bureaucracy running efficiently. His modesty and sunny disposition made him popular overseas and with a slight majority of Americans.
Obama was unusual in that he was both a great candidate and a very good president. Since LBJ only Clinton and Reagan achieved that.
Because the US Presidential election has evolved into a celebrity contest. It mostly boils down to who can put on the best show. It no longer has much to do with who is the most qualified. If employers hired people based on who could provide the most entertaining interview, I’m afraid our entire economy would likely collapse. Most people don’t even research the candidates. They aren’t familiar with the issues or the candidates stances on them. They don’t take the time to look at the candidate’s track records. Which brings to question, are they even qualified to have an opinion or vote?
Politics and the unfounded belief that only people with money can win a political office!!!
But that myth is being eroded away as in 2016, 2018, 2020 we saw 100s of regular Americans winning public office without the backing of a large political party nor millions of dollars to spend on their campaign !!!
Americans saw that some of the most intellectually challenged win their elections to become the ultra rightwing “freedom Cacus” !!! That sperd a flood of college graduates on the left to run for office without backing of the Democratic party and each election saw 100s of these people win and ov
Politics and the unfounded belief that only people with money can win a political office!!!
But that myth is being eroded away as in 2016, 2018, 2020 we saw 100s of regular Americans winning public office without the backing of a large political party nor millions of dollars to spend on their campaign !!!
Americans saw that some of the most intellectually challenged win their elections to become the ultra rightwing “freedom Cacus” !!! That sperd a flood of college graduates on the left to run for office without backing of the Democratic party and each election saw 100s of these people win and over time win reelection due to their agenda of working for the avg middle-class Americans!!!
Joe Biden may be boring. Competence and rationality can be boring. The Donald is not boring—the White House is a three ring circus every day. We are the laughingstock of the world. We have become a reality TV show.
Give me boring or give me death!
Because, like most judgmental people, you equate someone disagreeing with you as a sign of their “ineptness”.
Of course, a purely objective answer would be something to the effect that we’re all human, and no human being can be an expert or authority on every subject under the sun. We all know what we know and we don’t know what we don’t know.
Because we as a nation have been negligent and allowed the shit to rise to the top.
There are no qualifications for elected office, only “eligibility requirements”.
There are no standards of conduct among politicians that are enforced any more.
Party has replaced nation as the priority.
Sound bites and gotcha moments have replaced logic and statesmanship.
It’s like 2 pilots fighting over control of an airplane that has no wings. Unless you properly identify the problem and cooperate, you are going down.
A candidate’s name is the very first bit of marketing in which he or she can engage. Which means it’s an easy opportunity to portray one’s self with one advantage or another, depending on the constituency.
“Robert O’Rourke” sounds like an insurance salesman. (No slight at insurance salesmen; my extended family includes a few insurance agents!) But it’s not really an advantage in a state like Texas,
A candidate’s name is the very first bit of marketing in which he or she can engage. Which means it’s an easy opportunity to portray one’s self with one advantage or another, depending on the constituency.
“Robert O’Rourke” sounds like an insurance salesman. (No slight at insurance salesmen; my extended family includes a few insurance agents!) But it’s not really an advantage in a state like Texas, with its large Hispanic population. Consider an alternative state like Massachusetts - a good Irish name probably helps in Boston, right?
“Beto,” however - according to Vox, “…a childhood nickname that stuck” and “a common nickname in Mexico for people named Roberto” - suggests a much more with it candidate in Texas, doesn’t it? You hear “Beto” and you don’t think “rich white guy,” do you?
And that dovetails nicely with his attempts to portray himself as the cool guy on the campaign trail. He skateboards! He air-drums! He says “fuck”! Never mind the cultural appropriation - he might beat Ted Cruz! “Beto” it is!
Of course, the reverse is true of Ted Cruz - birth name “Rafael E. Cruz” - but then again, our friends on the left normally shy away from telling minorities how to assimilate into A...
“Weak” is not the appropriate term, because they are both strong-willed. Maybe you mean “Defective”? - But that is a matter of opinion.
Trump is a curve ball. In November he may become regarded as anything but weak. I regard him as a smart strategist who often plays “weak” to sidetrack his opponents (among other strategies).
Uhhhhhh, define “rare”?
Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former Maryland Congressman John Delaney
Montana Governor Steve Bullock
Former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton
New Jersey Senator Cory Booker
California Senator Kamala Harris
Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan
New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Colorado Senator Michael Bennet
Billionaire Tom Steyer
Former Pennsylvania Representative Joe Sestak
There are at least FIFTEEN Democratic candidates whose positions
Uhhhhhh, define “rare”?
Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former Maryland Congressman John Delaney
Montana Governor Steve Bullock
Former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton
New Jersey Senator Cory Booker
California Senator Kamala Harris
Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan
New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Colorado Senator Michael Bennet
Billionaire Tom Steyer
Former Pennsylvania Representative Joe Sestak
There are at least FIFTEEN Democratic candidates whose positions are more moderate. That makes the progressives the outliers in the field.
And that’s only the Democrats!
There’s also the Republican challenger:
Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld
And a possible independent run from a man SO moderate he seems to have no real positions on anything:
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz
So I take issue with the factual basis of your premise.
I would argue there are far too MANY moderate candidates if anything.
There are good candidates but we need to ask meaningful questions in search of meaningful, sincere and intelligent answers without shouting and name calling .
The present crop of candidates are influenced to an unprecedented degree by the heretofore unprecedented 24 X 7 media explosion. Previous generations read books based on peer-reviewed research ... vice "from the heart" "hit" pieces selected by media moguls for their ability to electrify and captivate viewer's attention.
"Nowadays" as opposed to when? When have there ever been "good" candidates? The scrutiny that a public office position brings necessarily also attracts severe criticism from opponents, especially while the candidate is still a candidate.
If you think candidates were in any way "better" decades ago, you need to read the newspaper editions from the 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s - any will do the job.
Trump’s the most exciting president since JFK and Reagan and a great statesman and comedian as he puts his Dem opponents in their rightful place. Dems are never happy and that helps explain why they suck.
They Aren’t Greedy
Who is more likely to run for president, someone who seeks power and wealth at all costs, or someone who is principled?
They Aren’t Elitist
Personally I think it is nuts that some people decide they should have the ability to tell everyone else what to do. It is the peak of elitism to say that you are somehow superior and everyone else needs to be forced to do what you command.
The main exception to this rule I can think of is Rand Paul, who ran with the intention of decreasing the size of government and installing more strict checks and balances because he is against elitists r
They Aren’t Greedy
Who is more likely to run for president, someone who seeks power and wealth at all costs, or someone who is principled?
They Aren’t Elitist
Personally I think it is nuts that some people decide they should have the ability to tell everyone else what to do. It is the peak of elitism to say that you are somehow superior and everyone else needs to be forced to do what you command.
The main exception to this rule I can think of is Rand Paul, who ran with the intention of decreasing the size of government and installing more strict checks and balances because he is against elitists running our lives. But most people who run for president fall into the first category.
They Aren’t Politically Connected
Those with political connections are far more likely to run than those without. In order to maintain political connections in today’s world, many people have to sacrifice some level of integrity. At the very least you have to be someone who other political figures find useful in order to succeed. This is not a good sign for strength of principle.
They Have a Less Skewed Understanding of the World
The people with the best understanding of the world, I would argue, are those who have not spent their life making rules for other people and playing politics.
The people who travel, learn about history and marketplaces, and enjoy the company of the average worker are those who can do the most benefit. These people are not self-interested in getting power, and don’t have the crazy elitist mentality that they should run other people’s lives. They know from traveling, history, and business that people thrive when they have freedom, not when they are controlled.
The most astute of men and women, with some control of their ego, know that the only Power a Potus has is that allowed to her by the Global corporations’ Boards, that purchased her.
See: Biden being told to get lost for attempting to extend his pathetic psychotic pretensions to Power.
The American people have no one else to blame but themselves. Also, our democracy has deteriorated to the point that positions in government are bought and too many voters will vote their party no matter how bad the candidate. I honestly believe that if Putin left Russia, became a u.s. citizen, and ran for president, he would get plenty of votes, no matter which party he was running for.
I personally think it’s because the pool they’re drawing from is so small and singular. They are usually wealthy lawyers. There is so much that becomes corrupted by the necessity for raising funds and by its nature. Those choosing candidates are so conservative and so fearful of losing, they have chosen old and familiar faces, it’s almost impossible to get a young firebrand, who is prepared to take on the establishment by promising radical change, a non lawyer and sent by the people. Someone like the Ukraine’s have, in Zelensky.
That’s because people in this country are kinda stupid as a whole. Bkue collar guys would be great presidents. They know what it’s like to work hard. A farmer, an Electrician. Guys that work, who know what it’s like to be a normal American.
Buuuuut. No. Instead, everyone elects Lawyers and Political Science majors, because they are trained bullshitters. They are almost always wealthy or came from some Ivy League school.
People think they are “qualified” and blue collar guy over there isn’t. Yet, they aren’t qualified. They just talk a good game, and the majority of you guys continue to buy into
That’s because people in this country are kinda stupid as a whole. Bkue collar guys would be great presidents. They know what it’s like to work hard. A farmer, an Electrician. Guys that work, who know what it’s like to be a normal American.
Buuuuut. No. Instead, everyone elects Lawyers and Political Science majors, because they are trained bullshitters. They are almost always wealthy or came from some Ivy League school.
People think they are “qualified” and blue collar guy over there isn’t. Yet, they aren’t qualified. They just talk a good game, and the majority of you guys continue to buy into it,
So until you open the field to diverse candidates (thought) and stop electing the same people, it won’t change.
The best presidential candidates don’t run because they won’t win. They don’t have the money or the support. Your fault, not theirs.
I don’t know who was the worst, but here are some honorable mentions from the history collection web site.
Horace Greeley (1872 Election)
Although he received 43.8% of the popular vote, Greeley only carried 6 states and was defeated 286-66 in the Electoral College. It should be noted that Greeley actually died before the Electoral College votes were counted but he had been comprehensively beaten. To say he had a terrible year up to that point is an understatement. The Republicans had successfully completed a smear campaign on Greeley and he had to suspend his own campaign almost a month before t
I don’t know who was the worst, but here are some honorable mentions from the history collection web site.
Horace Greeley (1872 Election)
Although he received 43.8% of the popular vote, Greeley only carried 6 states and was defeated 286-66 in the Electoral College. It should be noted that Greeley actually died before the Electoral College votes were counted but he had been comprehensively beaten. To say he had a terrible year up to that point is an understatement. The Republicans had successfully completed a smear campaign on Greeley and he had to suspend his own campaign almost a month before the election as he wife was gravely ill. She died on 30 October 1872, just six days before the election. Greeley died on 29 November and his Electoral College votes were divided among four other candidates. Oddly enough, he received three posthumous votes!
Thomas Dewey (1948 Election)
Dewey managed to throw away an election that was easier to win than lose. His opponent, President Truman, was extremely unpopular. Things were so bad for Truman that even his wife, Bess, believed his chances of victory were slim.
So how did Dewey lose? He became complacent and believed a win was inevitable. Since the Republicans believed they merely needed to avoid major blunders, Dewey adopted a ‘safety first’ strategy which was to backfire spectacularly. His speeches were dull, vague and utterly pointless. Statements such as “your future is still ahead of you” did nothing to rally people behind his cause. In contrast, Truman’s speeches were energetic and fired up supporters. As well as appealing to the white South, he also fared well with Midwestern farmers along with Catholic and Jewish voters.
The Wednesday 3 November 1948 (the day after the election), edition of the Chicago Daily Tribune had ‘DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN’ as its headline. It had been printed before the results were known in the East Coast states. One of the main reasons why the shock wasn’t predicted was due to the flaws in public opinion polling. Truman gleefully held up the newspaper following his victory in what is one of the most enduring images in U.S. Presidential Election history.
This reminds me of the morning after the 2016 Presidential election. I have never been more surprised than that November morning!
George McGovern (1972 Election)
George was a pretty woeful candidate and he limped to one of the most pathetic electoral performances ever seen.
The last night of the Democrat convention was a complete farce as procedural arguments resulted in McGovern giving his ‘Come Home America’ speech at 3am Florida time. A prime time speech had a potential audience of 70 million; this was reduced to 15 million by the time he arrived on the podium. Things got worse when it was revealed that McGovern’s running mate, Eagleton, had received electroshock therapy on several occasions for depression and nervous exhaustion in the 1960s. He withdrew and was replaced by Sargent Shriver, JFK’s brother-in-law. McGovern made another blunder by making a speech where he said he was 1,000% behind Eagleton, but then drop Eagleton like a hot potato soon afterward.
Nixon, on the other hand, was riding the crest of a wave and did a little campaigning. It didn’t matter because an element of the Democrats had deserted McGovern and some even endorsed Nixon. By election week, McGovern knew he was finished and told a Nixon supporter to “kiss my ass” at a rally. He won just 37.5% of the popular vote and was beaten 520-17 in electoral votes. George didn’t even win his home state of South Dakota!
Walter Mondale (1984 Election)
Walter was on the wrong side of the biggest electoral vote defeat in history (yes, even worse than McGovern). To be fair to Walter, every potential Democrat candidate would have been trounced by the extremely popular Ronald Reagan but there was nothing about Walter that was appealing.
Walter put his foot in his mouth immediately after winning the Democratic nomination. At the Convention, Walter stated: “Let’s tell the truth. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.” His attempt to play the ‘honest’ candidate card didn’t help him at all. Maybe a majority of voters want to only hear what tickles their ears.
Walter was seen as a man who would help the poor but at the expense of the middle classes. This caused traditional Democrat voters, such as blue-collar workers in northern states, to vote for Reagan who was credited with the recent economic boom. In the end, Mondale was beaten 525-13 as he only won D.C and his home state of Minnesota. At least, he did win over 40% of the popular vote if that was any consolation.
Because nothing has changed. I don’t mean since Joe Biden wrapped up the nomination in March. I mean nothing has really changed in the political environment since early 2017, when it became clear that Trump’s policies would be as awful as his campaign rhetoric. Pollsters regularly test voters on the generic ballot, which asks them which party they would prefer to control Congress, regardless of the specific candidates. According to 538’s tracker, in summer of 2017, Democrats led by between 6–8 points. A year and a half later on the eve of the midterms, Democrats led by 8.7%. In the actual elec
Because nothing has changed. I don’t mean since Joe Biden wrapped up the nomination in March. I mean nothing has really changed in the political environment since early 2017, when it became clear that Trump’s policies would be as awful as his campaign rhetoric. Pollsters regularly test voters on the generic ballot, which asks them which party they would prefer to control Congress, regardless of the specific candidates. According to 538’s tracker, in summer of 2017, Democrats led by between 6–8 points. A year and a half later on the eve of the midterms, Democrats led by 8.7%. In the actual election, Democrats almost exactly matched this margin with an 8.6% win. Today, Democrats lead by 7.1% and Joe Biden is ahead by 7.7%. Just about everyone made up their minds about Trump and the Republicans years ago. If you love him, you will keep on loving him. If you hate him, you will keep hating him. No amount of travel bans, white nationalist rallies, tax cuts, tell-all books, gaffes, trade wars, impeachment hearings, pandemics or riots will change that. Its dull because there’s no exciting ups and downs in polling to make a real horse race.
Because everybody is inept to some degree. Th press today is more interested in focusing on that than it was in, say, JFK’s time. Back then they shielded presidents from public knowledge of embarrassing behaviors.
I thought Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were both pretty silly but I doubt they saw themselves that way. Dan Quayle (G H W Bush's VP) couldn't spell potato and got laughed out of the race. George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey (Good God, he picked George Wallace as his VP), and Barry Goldwater all ran terrible campaigns. Al Gore came across as the pompous ass he really is, as did John Kerry. Then there's John McCain. He picked a good VP but would not let her take the fight to Barack Obama. It was like he was paid to throw the race.
There are more who never got on tbe Ballot than Dan Q, like Spiro T. Ag
I thought Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were both pretty silly but I doubt they saw themselves that way. Dan Quayle (G H W Bush's VP) couldn't spell potato and got laughed out of the race. George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey (Good God, he picked George Wallace as his VP), and Barry Goldwater all ran terrible campaigns. Al Gore came across as the pompous ass he really is, as did John Kerry. Then there's John McCain. He picked a good VP but would not let her take the fight to Barack Obama. It was like he was paid to throw the race.
There are more who never got on tbe Ballot than Dan Q, like Spiro T. Agnew. He was Nixon's VP anf his unmitigated arrogance tanked him. Curtis LeMay is another. He came across like Dr Strangelove. Bo Grits. A USSF Vietnam vet, who was a terrific soldier but media disaster with a circus-like venture into Cambodia with 2 pin-up girls to look for Vietnam MIAs. Back when it was quite uncool to be a socialist (boy, I miss those days) there were many socialist candidates. However, the one guy who entered the fray too soon, was Eldridge Cleaver, who ran in 1968. He was a founding member of the original Black Panthers, who were a violent, despised group at the time. Later, he had an awakening, ended his violent ways, and switched to the Republican Party. I think that, if he had run for president then, he might have won. He was a smart guy znd very articulate.
One of the candidates had never sought or held public office.
The other has been an elected political figure for four decades.
Which one has been proven to be inept?
When we will reach true Equality maybe we will have decent president. Dream of having a president who is: Jew, Muslim, Gay, Single, a Woman (black or white). We are absolutely not ready. If Kamala Harris wins it is because we d not have enough choices
Several reasons:
- There’s this problem with first-past-the-post and similar election systems called the “spoiler effect”. The idea is that by voting for a low-chance candidate you completely agree with (e.g. Pete Buttigieg), instead of a high-chance candidate you mostly agree with (e.g. Joe Biden), you are actually helping the candidate you least agree with (e.g. Bernie Sanders) win. It’s basically how Trump claimed the GOP ticket: the “moderate” GOP candidates were splitting the vote while Donald won every state. So the moderate wing of the democrats (Pete, Amy, Joe, Bloomberg) decided to not m
Several reasons:
- There’s this problem with first-past-the-post and similar election systems called the “spoiler effect”. The idea is that by voting for a low-chance candidate you completely agree with (e.g. Pete Buttigieg), instead of a high-chance candidate you mostly agree with (e.g. Joe Biden), you are actually helping the candidate you least agree with (e.g. Bernie Sanders) win. It’s basically how Trump claimed the GOP ticket: the “moderate” GOP candidates were splitting the vote while Donald won every state. So the moderate wing of the democrats (Pete, Amy, Joe, Bloomberg) decided to not make the same mistake, and coalesced around the candidate among them they believed had the best cards at the time, Joe Biden.
- Presidential campaigns are expensive. Like, really expensive. Tulsi can stay in it because she has virtually no ground game, but any candidate seriously trying needs to spend a lot of cash, and is dependent on regular influx of donation money to stay afloat. Donations are hard to get if you’re losing, though.
Trump was actually a great boon to the economy for a lot of us. Can you back up what you mean by poor? Probably not lol. Biden was good for a lot of things too.
What quality are you judging candidates by? Whether they don’t offend you or not? Or by policy?
lol
Most of these questions are asked by bottom feeder dregs because the logic behind it is obvious.
Hopefully you’re only 13 because you still have time to educated yourself on REALITY.
If you’re an adult, sadly you missed the boat lol
Because they are.
If the Democrats had an inspiring candidate, at least at this stage, they would be moving clear. It’s early days though but of the current bunch none have shown strong indications they can be inspiring.
I would nominate Ross Perot. A short man with a tinny staccato voice who once compared America’s problems with fixing a carburetor. (Please see his quotes, some are very good but many are very strange)
But what really makes me remember Ross Perot as a candidate was his running mate for vice President, Admiral James Stockdale. I will never forget his debate with Dan Quayle and Al Gore where he stood up and said “Who am I and why am I here”, what a great opening line. He then seemed to get bored during the debate and would pace around behind the podiums while the other candidates were speaking. I
I would nominate Ross Perot. A short man with a tinny staccato voice who once compared America’s problems with fixing a carburetor. (Please see his quotes, some are very good but many are very strange)
But what really makes me remember Ross Perot as a candidate was his running mate for vice President, Admiral James Stockdale. I will never forget his debate with Dan Quayle and Al Gore where he stood up and said “Who am I and why am I here”, what a great opening line. He then seemed to get bored during the debate and would pace around behind the podiums while the other candidates were speaking. It was like a comedy skit from Saturday Night Live!
Yes, but she is not a viable candidate for the primary. She is someone considered a moderate Democrat who doesn’t want to get all up in and involved in foreign wars has no chance with the Socialists and Marxists the party and media has allowed to take control. Had Tulsi ran in the primary against Obama and Hillary in 2008, she would have been a hard-left candidate. Now, they call her a Republican.
As I said on another similar question though, I f-ing love it. Democrats have a Candidate that would have a legit shot at beating Trump because she could win independents and those moderate Democrats
Yes, but she is not a viable candidate for the primary. She is someone considered a moderate Democrat who doesn’t want to get all up in and involved in foreign wars has no chance with the Socialists and Marxists the party and media has allowed to take control. Had Tulsi ran in the primary against Obama and Hillary in 2008, she would have been a hard-left candidate. Now, they call her a Republican.
As I said on another similar question though, I f-ing love it. Democrats have a Candidate that would have a legit shot at beating Trump because she could win independents and those moderate Democrats that are terrified of these post-modern idiots demanding socialism. The problem is that she will never win a primary like that. She is young, attractive, and not communist comrade scary, she is a woman, and a veteran… But Bernie and Warren it is. Two people pushing policies that failed in other places but telling you they can somehow make them work this time… 4 more years of Trump will be great!
Because American politics seem to be, from what I can tell from my limited perspective, mostly about pointing out the negatives of the opposition, rather than working out and presenting the positives of the own candidate and policies.
Once you reach a point, where a political campaign becomes only about being less worse than the opposing candidate, and not an actual better choice with a clear and positive political vision, you will create exactly that voter fatigue, that you seem to be experiencing right now.
That said, it was refreshing to see for me personally, how the DNC and Joe Biden’s camp
Because American politics seem to be, from what I can tell from my limited perspective, mostly about pointing out the negatives of the opposition, rather than working out and presenting the positives of the own candidate and policies.
Once you reach a point, where a political campaign becomes only about being less worse than the opposing candidate, and not an actual better choice with a clear and positive political vision, you will create exactly that voter fatigue, that you seem to be experiencing right now.
That said, it was refreshing to see for me personally, how the DNC and Joe Biden’s campaign in general, do seem to focus mostly on politics for once, and how he said he wants to be a president for all Americans, even those who do not vote for him - that really was the most important message to me, and a signal that he also thinks, that politics should be about the betterment of the country again, and not about smearing the other side.
It was really a positive surprise, after all that name-calling and destructive personal attacks we had to witness in the last few years.
They don’t appear weak to me. They appear normal. You are just used to arrogance, nastiness, vulgarity and profanity that comes out of trump’s mouth.
I’d say bowing to Putin and dictators is a sign of weakness.
Because they are all running against Trump, so they think they have to be against anything Trump is for. The problem is: Trump is for :” Make America Great Again” More Jobs, and America First. So these morons have to be against all those things. If they had a brain, they would say , “Yeah, but not the way you’re doing it”. But you know, liberals.
Because neither major party is making any effort to find and nourish new talent. The old guard is totally unwilling to let go of power…and the largest group of voters are in their age band, and keep voting for them.
It IS a huge problem. Where are the 45–55 year olds who are ready to move into those roles? They certainly aren’t visible on the national stage.
Simply put, no, at least not during era with reliable polling data. Since we’re in unprecedented territory, I’m personally very interested to see what happens with voter turnout in November. Conventional wisdom says it’ll be low because neither party is particularly motivated on a large scale, but I think the opposite will happen: High turnout to vote for the least bad candidate, because it seems most people REALLY despise one candidate and are more or less indifferent about the other.
The enemy of your enemy is your friend!
Actually they aren’t. There was (and I would say still is) no clear favorite candidate for the Democrats and, after their defeat in 2016, it is necessary that the various factions of the party debate the platform upon which the eventual candidate will run. The debate takes place all across the country in 50 state parties. That takes time. Yes a lot of countries keep the time periods for elections short, but they tend to be smaller countries without the diversity within their parties that exists in the U.S. If the country is smaller than one of our states and has several parties with predefined
Actually they aren’t. There was (and I would say still is) no clear favorite candidate for the Democrats and, after their defeat in 2016, it is necessary that the various factions of the party debate the platform upon which the eventual candidate will run. The debate takes place all across the country in 50 state parties. That takes time. Yes a lot of countries keep the time periods for elections short, but they tend to be smaller countries without the diversity within their parties that exists in the U.S. If the country is smaller than one of our states and has several parties with predefined positions, it takes less time to sort out candidates.
It’s mostly due to a rigged system, indoctrination, and political propaganda. Case in point, ‘Why are both presidential candidates’, the vast majority of people do not consider the competition to the two major parties. Third parties have always been around, however, the most common response is “That’s a wasted vote”, or, “If you vote third party your just helping so and so get elected”. Que the eye rolling. Both of those responses are inaccurate and generated by politicians telling people that who are afraid of the competition.
If you talk to voters, most people will eventually admit that they
It’s mostly due to a rigged system, indoctrination, and political propaganda. Case in point, ‘Why are both presidential candidates’, the vast majority of people do not consider the competition to the two major parties. Third parties have always been around, however, the most common response is “That’s a wasted vote”, or, “If you vote third party your just helping so and so get elected”. Que the eye rolling. Both of those responses are inaccurate and generated by politicians telling people that who are afraid of the competition.
If you talk to voters, most people will eventually admit that they only voted for ‘x’ so ‘y’ doesn’t get into office. These are the same people who will tell you that you’re wasting your vote by going with a third party. These are people voting against somebody, not for them. These are people voting reluctantly for someone in other words, and not for perhaps a third party candidate who they really like. In the United States, there is a belief that the system is all or nothing, and if your vote doesn’t constitute a win you wasted your vote. Let’s clear that up.
The two major parties, or the duopoly if you will, have platforms that change constantly to gain or regain voters. This lack of consistency can be taken advantage of by voters. When a major party loses votes to a third party, that major party will probably adjust their platform accordingly. Let’s say you’re Democrat, and you don’t like where the Democrats are heading, are you really doing your party any favors by continuing to vote for them? Dissent is ok, and it gives feedback that could possibly get your party back on track. Third party votes make a difference, win or lose.
Aside from the misdirection the public gets about third parties, the system is actually rigged against them. Some states don’t even have third parties on the ballot. Furthermore, to get into the debates a candidate needs 15% on polls that often don’t list third party candidates. Lame right?
So due to these things the country is forced into a position that enables the duopoly, and leaves people voting for a lesser evil. The only way to change it is by demanding states open up ballots to third parties, put them on polls, and let them speak in the debates. It’s unfortunate that this is even an issue let alone an uphill battle. A great start is when people ask questions like this though, and I hope I answered it sufficiently.
A they are human, they make mistake, some cases it’s greed and in some case not fit for office.