|
They are much better at winning elections because they have to be; if a fair airing of their policies was made, they'd never be able to get enough votes. Their policies just don't benefit most people and actively hurt most people.
Still, they fought hard until the thing was decided, and that's what we're doing.
One of the great things about a long primary season is that it helps to show who has he better chance to win. It also shows what really matters to the individuals and what they're really made of--which is often quite alarming--but it REALLY starts to reveal some core beliefs.
The electability is the big issue. Anyone who wants to say that there's THAT much difference between the two left standing should have his/her head removed as a public hazard. They're both rather slippery moderates with a lot of baggage.
What's more important than anything is to divine who has the best chance. What has inspired allegiance to a particular candidate is not the point; the point is that we're all in this together and we morally and ethically owe it to ourselves to figure out who's got the best shot and fall in line. The haughty outrage against either candidate can easily be countered by the transgressions made by the other, and those who can't seem to grasp or admit this are a danger to us all.
Obviously, the situation is simply not decided yet and needs to run a bit more of its course.
People need to step back, take a big breath and see how fast and conclusively things can change. It's still seven and a half months 'til the election, and some twists and turns may be lethal. They've both weathered some serious squalls, but there are more to come.
There's a blockheaded attitude among far too many that it's better to fight on principle with a more dicey candidate than to go with the one who's got the better chance, and that's just bullshit. They've both got good points and they've both got icky ones, to such a degree that it truly explains why we're still at loggerheads about the damned thing.
|