"We have no faith in you, but you're our only option."

[Anthony K. S.]

That, in a nutshell, in my opinion, is what is happening right now.

Next month, from what I can see and hear, there will be huge numbers of people going to the polls and voting Republican.

Now, I have a question for you :

Did something miraculous happen in the past 23 months that has caused the American public to feel a tremendous wave of faith and confidence in the Republican party?

. . . Give me a break.

The American people will be voting against the Democrats, not for the Republicans.

In short, the voters will be telling the Republican Party :

"We have absolutely no faith in you. But right now, we hate the Democrats even more. So we're going to vote for you, even though we think you suck, because you are, quite literally, our ONLY other option."

I don't know about you, but if I knew that I only got a job because I was less objectionable than the other candidate, I wouldn't be feeling all that much like celebrating.


Now, mind, none of this is unique to the Republicans. Do you really believe that the Democrats won their sweeping victories in 2008 because the public liked the Democrats so much?

Come on. They won because the voters were feeling a wave of anti-Bush passion . . . Not that John McCain did himself any favors, especially when he selected his running mate.


Of course, after they win, the GOP isn't going to acknowledge any of this. They didn't in 1994. The Democrats didn't in 2008. Why should they now?

The Republicans, along with Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, et. al., are going to spin it quite differently. That's what politicians do.

I'm just urging people I know not to let themselves get taken in by the spin and the hype, and bear in mind the harsher reality of American voting patterns.


You know, a lot of my friends and co-workers have been talking about the elections, and a constantly recurring theme in these conversations is how much they dislike a candidate, but then they go on to say, "But I'd still rather have him/her than . . . "

This is, of course, the classic state of American politics. We're not trying to decide who we want in office. We're trying to decide who is the least objectionable.

[Rantsylvania 6-5000]

That's exactly how it is! As my mom says, "voting for the lesser of two evils". There aren't really any good choices anymore, because there are no idealists running for office, only politicians.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

You don't hire a film student to be a banker. I couldn't care less whether or not a candidate is an idealist, I care about their views and their intentions. Whether you like the political world or not, it's nevertheless impractical to elect anyone who isn't experienced in that field.

Besides, when you're trying to do what's objectively best for a population this large and varied there is never going to be a candidate that's more than largely in line with most people's opinions. The optimal politician is one who balances what he/she thinks needs to be done with the views of others as well as legal, fiscal and practical/logistical concerns. Simply put: a realist.

[Skunkle]

I also note (for the record, I tend to lean toward Democrat/left wing, but don't hold rigidly to everything those supposedly entail) that 90% of campaign ads say ZERO about why I should vote for the candidate sponsoring the ad. All they tell me is the many, many reasons the other candidate is the wrong choice.

I couldn't care less why you want me not to vote for the other guy. I do care why I SHOULD vote for you. Not that Congressional candidates from either major party seem to do what we want; they do what the lobbies want. Ban private funding of campaigns and limit the reach of lobbies, and it is my opinion that things will take a step in a better direction. Fix the way candidates can fund their campaigns, and you'll have any and everyone running for office, on multiple parties, and more chance of one of them actually making it.

[daleduke17]

That's exactly how it is! As my mom says, "voting for the lesser of two evils". There aren't really any good choices anymore, because there are no idealists running for office, only politicians.

Try looking at the third party candidates. Stop looking only at Democrats and Republicans. Look at ALL candidates and decide then.

Here's a good question: why won't the media give the third parties any real exposure?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Well I don't know about anywhere else but around here the independents have more or less all been on the same par as the major party candidates. Once you eliminate the members of major parties throwing a hissy and the painfully single issue candidates what you're left with are basically just the same as you had before. A mixture of upsides and downsides, agreements and disagreements that are never going to come close to representing a majority of the populace.

At that point the fact that the differences tend to only be slight between whatever few indies if any make it that far and the two-party representatives that it makes better strategic sense to vote for someone who'll stand a chance at winning. If I vote for the slightly preferable (which so far hasn't been the case, but I'll grant you the 'what if') but doomed to lose choice over the still preferable but stands a chance choice I'm in essence increasing the chances that the truly non-preferable candidate will win. I'm most likely to get what I want by voting for the major party representative, therefore, that's who I vote for.

I don't dispute that it's a self-fulfilling cycle. But I can't say I care at all about strengthening the public opinion of third party candidates. After all, even if we did get a third working party up and running, chances are that, for most people, it would now just be a choice between the lesser of three evils. Whoopdy-fucking-doo.

[guywithashovel]

I had this discussion with someone once, and it was pointed out that if there were three major parties, a candidate would only have to gain the support of between 35 and 40 percent of the population in order to win. Of course, this has happened before in our elections. In 1992, when Clinton, Bush Sr., and Perot were all running as major candidates, Clinton won the election with only 43% of the popular vote, which is roughly the same percentage of the popular vote that Jimmy Carter got in 1980 when he got defeated in an electoral landslide by Ronald Reagan.

I guess this isn't totally a bad thing, but it would mean that candidates wouldn't have to work as hard to get elected, and incumbents wouldn't have to work as hard to get reelected.

Honestly, I would like to do away with parties all together. Too many people make decisions about candidates based merely on the party they belong to. To some extent, I'm guilty of that. The way I feel right now, I want to avoid all Republicans. However, I try to keep an open mind. If there were no parties, I wouldn't have to worry about this.

[bhskittykatt]

I've been told I should vote for the lesser of two evils when there's no right choice, but I think that's what's gotten us into this mess where politics have become completely polarized.

My ballot always has Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and other independent parties marked on it. I go through the pamphlet and pick whoever I think is best, regardless of party preference. In fact, if we got rid of the parties, I'd be in voting bliss!