Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
That's true, but it misses the point of what I think he's trying to say which is: when faced with two options and one is clearly superior in almost every way
|
How do you not see the bias inherent in this statement? If I'd had the opportunity, I would have voted for Gore and Kerry, but Bush was certainly a reasonable choice in 2000, depending on your politics. In 2004, the Swift Boat thing complicates matters as does the fact that Kerry was a pretty bad candidate, but a Bush vote was at least
defensible. Especially if you were ideologically conservative - if you aligned with the usual GOP platform, he was basically the clear choice. Not to mention that a lot of people just won't vote against an incumbent in war time.
There's no comparison between these things. The closest comparable to the staggering incompetence and lack of qualification and just pure horror that the Trump candidacy represents is Sarah Palin, and she was a governor and a former mayor, at least. I'm pretty confident that Sarah Palin would have been ten times the president Trump would (and still might) be. And yet the mere
prospect of having her an aging John McCain heartbeat from the oval office was enough to disqualify McCain's candidacy for many people - which wasn't an unreasonable basis for voting against him. Exhibit A:
There's really no precedent for this if it happens. Even Brexit doesn't remotely compare.