The Candidate Hustle 2016

Every two years we have some kind of election in our country. Maybe that’s too much for us. Because voter turnout, especially for midterm elections, leaves much to be desired. Intelligent voting requires research which takes time. It's very demanding, but it's our civic dute to participate.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, our population as of 2014 is 318.9 million. The number of eligible voters is 218.9 million, leaving 100 million either under-aged, felons, or non-citizens.

The number of people registered to vote is only 146.3 million or 66% of those eligible. Not a bad percentage. But only 57.5% of those registered voted in the last Presidential election (2012). Therefore, over one-third of those who could vote did not. For more stats, go here.

With the choices we have for this election, one might expect a low voter turnout. If you can't get behind any one candidate, how do you work up the excitement to vote? It's a dilemma.

In Brazil, an on-again, off-again democracy classroom.synonym.com, reports that, “A new Constitution became law in 1989, establishing the Federative Republic of Brazil. Brazilians now enjoyed full democracy, with the military allowing free, open elections.” Voter turnout for Presidential elections has hovered at 80%, and closer to 70% for non-Presidential elections. I'd say the Brazillians are very engaged in the election process.

In Indonesia, the records show 80-90% voter turnout. Check this link for other countries. I was amazed at the stats for Italy. America . . . we should do better.

So here we are again, on the brink of another Presidential election. I personally am appalled at the choices.

I remember asking my Dad about the election of 1960 when Nixon ran against Kennedy. He said it didn’t really matter who won because there wasn’t that much difference in the candidates. In retrospect, Rush Limbaugh referred to Kennedy as a conservative. His views on trade, business and defense, aligned with Republicans. And mostly the candidates behaved like ladies and gentlemen throughout the selection process. The deterioration in behavior, I believe, has reached its lowest level this year.

As I have grown older and become more involved in elections, I have seen the candidates become quite different, the distinction between Republican and Democrat becoming sharper and sharper.

The socialist leanings of the Democrat party could not have been more evident than with Bernie Sanders, while the policies of Ted Cruz were deeply conservative. In fact, he was the only clear choice for conservatives, of which group I consider myself a member.

Now we have these two caricatures running against each other as candidates for the major political parties. And there is great division in the ranks. On both sides. I always wonder how the "drop outs" can smile and endorse each other after all the accusations and name calling that preceded.

I haven’t voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976. I felt, as an engineer, he was not an “insider,” although he had been governor of Georgia. He was/is a Southern Baptist, which appealed to me, and Nixon had made such a mess of things, that I was disenchanted with the Republicans.

Today we have a man who likes to consider himself the outsider. He can’t be bought by anyone and he owes no allegiance to anyone. Sounds good on the surface, but getting things accomplished in government demands you work with people with whom you have relationship. A president is not a boss. He cannot make law. He/she must work with Congress. On the surface his positions on key issues takes on the hue of conservative thought. But he has been a Democrat most of his life. His flip flops on where he stands are numerous.

And, once again, Republicans are disenchanted with the party.

Hillary Clinton is the golden girl of the Democrat party who literally can do no wrong . . . even when she does. Some women want her because she’s a woman. Somehow that is all the credential required for some voters. They choose not to believe all the reports of her illegal and flat-out stupid acts dating back to Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Side Bar

I never thought I’d say this, but over the past 8 years, I have missed Bubba.

End Side Bar

I feel like we are being hustled from both sides. The modus operandi is to so villify your opponent that the electorate will in essence vote against him/her by voting for you.

Perhaps things will get better during the debates. Maybe Trump can actually begin to look Presdential. Maybe we can get to know the "Libertarian" candidate, Gary Johnson, if he participates therein. A very good idea for those wanting to vote for an alternative, because the man is NOT a true Libertarian. You might call him "Libertarian Lite." Just as Mitt Romney was (IMHO) "Republican Lite." And quite frankly, I'd rather have the real thing. Another third (fourth?) party candidate is another liberal, Jill Stein for the Green Party.

Those of you who pin your hopes on a third party candidate . . . Remember Ross Perot. This from Wikipedia:

“Perot's almost 19% of the popular vote made him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Also, Ross Perot's 19% of the popular vote was the highest ever percent of the popular vote for a candidate who did not win any electoral votes.”

Apparently, Gary Johnson's only hope is for the election to be thrown into the House, where the state delegations decide who to vote for, each state getting ONE vote. A fact that he just discovered.

It seems to me that everyone of the candidates has liberal leanings. Yes, even Mr. Trump. And since he's never held office so that we can see what he would do, he can make all kinds of promises. We must make a judgment based on hope. Must I choose him because the other choices are anathema to me? Is that enough to make him the leader of the Free World?

God help us.