What happens when you don't like any of the candidates? Anyone feel that way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but n this field of 20+ candidates, if you can't find ONE that can keep the country's head above water, you are looking at the wrong things. You are trying to find someone you like, not someone who can govern. I am a hard core liberal, but even I could find three Republicans who are capable of not running us aground.

I'm a moderate, but I agree with your underlying point. There absolutely are qualified candidates in the race. People treat this like a high school popularity contest, when it's really more like a job interview. We've got a very specific and difficult job that we need to fill. Who can do it? My list of who's most qualified?: Clinton, Christie, Kasich, Bush. Rubio, O'Malley, Sanders, and Jindal are in the camp of probably not actually qualified, but likely close enough to qualified not to run the country into a ditch. None of the others are really qualified IMHO: Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum (either because they simply lack relevant experience, or because their views are so far outside the mainstream that they'd be ineffective leaders for the country).

I agree with this. I HATE Trump and think he's making this whole race look like a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me too. I think Hillary is actually quite qualified, but she's got so much baggage and I'm not fond of her on a personal level so I'm not sure I'd feel great about voting for her. I love Bernie's message but I simply don't think they are realistic for the US.

I will not vote for a Republican.

Plus one to all of this.

Because I will not vote for any of THESE Republicans, I will most certainly vote for whomever is on the ticket on the Dem side, be it Hillary or Bernie. The thought of a Cruz or Rubio (or Trump or Carson) with a Republican legislature has me ready to vote quickly and get out the vote on the Dem side as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic machine has kept the non-politician out of the public race so far. Maybe look into Lawrence Lessig and see if you like him?

Not that he'll win the primary, but I think people would like Lessig if they realized he was running.

I'm sorry, but Lessig is a ridiculous candidate. His entire premise was that he would run on a single issue (campaign finance reform), implement those reforms and then immediately resign. And now he acknowledges that this was a foolish idea and claims to be running as a real candidate who will not resign immediately.

How can anyone take him seriously as a presidential candidate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Me too. I think Hillary is actually quite qualified, but she's got so much baggage and I'm not fond of her on a personal level so I'm not sure I'd feel great about voting for her. I love Bernie's message but I simply don't think they are realistic for the US.

I will not vote for a Republican.

I'm a moderate who thinks differently. Clinton has the skills, but she also has an incredible lack of integrity. She has proven for 30 years that she will do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, will ignore laws, will ignore ethics standards and will lie to cover up what she has done. Expediency and personal gain (usually political) are her only guidelines. While a person like this can operate as a senator or cabinet member like Secretary of State, such a person should not serve as the President.

I have not voted for a Republican since George HW Bush, but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

Regarding OP's question about Biden, he too was my candidate of choice, but he has a very good reason for declining to run. His adult son just died in May and his family is still grieving. He is not ready for a hard presidential campaign and his family is not ready to be pushed back into the forefront of the media circus. Right now, they are the media equivalent of B-listers and they do not want to be pushed back to the A-list. They also need more time to mourn which they won't have if he was making a presidential run. I have never lost a child, but I have known friends who have. And every family is different with how long it takes them to grieve. But I have never seen a family lose an adult child, especially one that they were close with, who have been able to move past the grief in less than a year. I know some that 2-3 years later are still having problems coming to grips with the loss of their child. Six months? He's not even close to being able to put that behind him. I'm not even sure that come election day next year that he'd be ready to run for President, let alone actually hold that office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me too. I think Hillary is actually quite qualified, but she's got so much baggage and I'm not fond of her on a personal level so I'm not sure I'd feel great about voting for her. I love Bernie's message but I simply don't think they are realistic for the US.

I will not vote for a Republican.

I'm a moderate who thinks differently. Clinton has the skills, but she also has an incredible lack of integrity. She has proven for 30 years that she will do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, will ignore laws, will ignore ethics standards and will lie to cover up what she has done. Expediency and personal gain (usually political) are her only guidelines. While a person like this can operate as a senator or cabinet member like Secretary of State, such a person should not serve as the President.

I have not voted for a Republican since George HW Bush, but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

Regarding OP's question about Biden, he too was my candidate of choice, but he has a very good reason for declining to run. His adult son just died in May and his family is still grieving. He is not ready for a hard presidential campaign and his family is not ready to be pushed back into the forefront of the media circus. Right now, they are the media equivalent of B-listers and they do not want to be pushed back to the A-list. They also need more time to mourn which they won't have if he was making a presidential run. I have never lost a child, but I have known friends who have. And every family is different with how long it takes them to grieve. But I have never seen a family lose an adult child, especially one that they were close with, who have been able to move past the grief in less than a year. I know some that 2-3 years later are still having problems coming to grips with the loss of their child. Six months? He's not even close to being able to put that behind him. I'm not even sure that come election day next year that he'd be ready to run for President, let alone actually hold that office.

If Biden's family didn't want to be "pushed back into the forefront of the media circus," perhaps he shouldn't have talked to Maureen Dowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a moderate who thinks differently. Clinton has the skills, but she also has an incredible lack of integrity. She has proven for 30 years that she will do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, will ignore laws, will ignore ethics standards and will lie to cover up what she has done. Expediency and personal gain (usually political) are her only guidelines. While a person like this can operate as a senator or cabinet member like Secretary of State, such a person should not serve as the President.
I'm the other moderate. I think you've been snookered by the anti-Clinton media messaging. She certainly has her own political warts and missteps, just like any other politician, but saddling her with lines like "incredible lack of integrity" is the sort of vague whisper attack that gets us nowhere IMHO.

[Anonymous]

You vote for the one who will do least harm. Least harm to society, least harm globally, least harm all around.

That's how I always vote. I was not happy with our last options but held my nose and voted anyway.

What is scary to me is that out of 300 million Americans, one of these 20 is supposed to be leader of our country. When I was younger I used to think that to become a candidate for President, you had to be this 'great' person. Someone that is a clear leader, someone outstanding and immensely smart with a rare degree of integrity.

To the pp who said it isn't a popularity contest, you're wrong. It's a popularity contest, a contest of who can make enough shady behind the curtain deals and raise the most money. Of who can sell themselves the best.

We have to just pick the one that will do least harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a moderate who thinks differently. Clinton has the skills, but she also has an incredible lack of integrity. She has proven for 30 years that she will do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, will ignore laws, will ignore ethics standards and will lie to cover up what she has done. Expediency and personal gain (usually political) are her only guidelines. While a person like this can operate as a senator or cabinet member like Secretary of State, such a person should not serve as the President.

I'm the other moderate. I think you've been snookered by the anti-Clinton media messaging. She certainly has her own political warts and missteps, just like any other politician, but saddling her with lines like "incredible lack of integrity" is the sort of vague whisper attack that gets us nowhere IMHO.

That poster has not only been snookered, he or she is actively trying to snooker others here. The far left has inadvertently teamed up with the right to go after Clinton this time around, with fairly predictable results.

If the poster is turned off by Clinton's "incredible lack of integrity," he or she must be equally dismayed by the current crop of Republican candidates.

[Anonymous]

You don't vote.

I am not a Mrs. Clinton fan, but frankly, I don't think she lacks integrity more than any other politician. So it is really up to you. Which evil (hopefully, lesser) do you want to help to get into office? I refuse to be part of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me too. I think Hillary is actually quite qualified, but she's got so much baggage and I'm not fond of her on a personal level so I'm not sure I'd feel great about voting for her. I love Bernie's message but I simply don't think they are realistic for the US.

I will not vote for a Republican.

Plus one to all of this.

Same.
Maybe Pataki from NY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a moderate who thinks differently. Clinton has the skills, but she also has an incredible lack of integrity. She has proven for 30 years that she will do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, will ignore laws, will ignore ethics standards and will lie to cover up what she has done. Expediency and personal gain (usually political) are her only guidelines. While a person like this can operate as a senator or cabinet member like Secretary of State, such a person should not serve as the President.

I'm the other moderate. I think you've been snookered by the anti-Clinton media messaging. She certainly has her own political warts and missteps, just like any other politician, but saddling her with lines like "incredible lack of integrity" is the sort of vague whisper attack that gets us nowhere IMHO.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and no, I don't think I've been snookered. I've been a voting american for over 30 years and have watched the various Clinton scandals unfold each time. Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, and the email controversy. Throughout her career she has consistently exhibited a case of apathy towards the law and ethics practices. And while there are other candidates who have had one or two missteps and mistakes, she has significantly more questionable actions and events in her career than just about any two other candidates out there.

I also think, as I mentioned, that there are still many offices and political jobs that she can hold with those issues, one's where there is more oversight of ethical misconduct, but the Presidency is job that I think is too hard to pin down and that her lack of integrity will be a huge impediment to getting the job done. I think her ghosts and her way of doing business will be a huge hindrance to performing the presidential duties and would detract from her being an effective president. She would be spending more time responding and spinning her story than she would doing the work. We need a candidate with a lot less political baggage than this.

[Anonymous]

You can either skip that part of the ballot or write a name in. Heck, you can write your own name in if you want.

[Anonymous]

Hillary is as smart, unprincipled and dishonest as Bill, but without his endearing (to some) rogue qualities. I can't fathom why O'Malley -- who seems like a mix of Clinton's and Sanders' better qualities, while avoiding Hillary's stench and Bernie's nuttiness -- isn't getting more traction given this field. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hillary is as smart, unprincipled and dishonest as Bill, but without his endearing (to some) rogue qualities. I can't fathom why O'Malley -- who seems like a mix of Clinton's and Sanders' better qualities, while avoiding Hillary's stench and Bernie's nuttiness -- isn't getting more traction given this field. Thoughts?

I think you should stick to voting Republican and leave the PR to the professionals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic machine has kept the non-politician out of the public race so far. Maybe look into Lawrence Lessig and see if you like him?

Not that he'll win the primary, but I think people would like Lessig if they realized he was running.

I'm sorry, but Lessig is a ridiculous candidate. His entire premise was that he would run on a single issue (campaign finance reform), implement those reforms and then immediately resign. And now he acknowledges that this was a foolish idea and claims to be running as a real candidate who will not resign immediately.

How can anyone take him seriously as a presidential candidate?

Lessing just quit.