Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick
I think that is mainly a reflection that both major parties put up terrible candidates. I don't believe it was a bunch of people so secure with a HRC victory they felt they had the luxury of a vote for Stein.
I saw as many bumper stickers asking the Sweet Meteor of Death to end it all as I did for each of the major party candidates. I think that was a one-off, not a trend.
|
1968: Nixon* v. Humphrey** v. Wallace***
1972: Nixon* v. McGovern****
1976: Ford**** v. Carter****
1980: Carter**** v. Reagan*****
1984: Reagan***** v. Mondale**
1988: Bush**** v. Dukakis****
1992: Bush**** v. Clinton***** v. Perot****
1996: Clinton***** v. Dole****
2000: Gore**** v. Bush******
2004: Bush****** v. Kerry**
2008: Obama***** v. McCain****
2012: Obama***** v. Romney****
It's a trend. With the exception of Obama, Clinton, and Reagan, we've been offered lackluster shit for a long time. My suspicion is most good candidates couldn't or wouldn't run because they had some libertine proclivities which would have rendered them unqualified to the Moral Majority assholes and elderly Puritan sorts who made up a lot of the voting public.
If there's a silver lining to Trump, it's the passing grade of the Presidency's moral litmus test has dropped from the traditional 70 to about 30 percent. (In fairness, however, Bush and Obama also deserve some credit. Bush couldn't run from his drinking or coked up past, and Obama honorably owned up to the recreational activities of his life.)
_____________
* Powermad would-be dictator
** Stuffed shirt zero
*** Vile lunatic
**** Good person, but hopeless politician
***** Truly charismatic statesman with mixed record in office
****** Dangerous neocon enabler
