Americans suffer from the so-called âtyranny of choice” every time they step out the door and enter a market place. Doesn’t seem to affect them. And yet, somehow, when presidential primaries have more than one or two candidates, the pundit class pretends like it’s a national crisis. They must drop out! Too many choices!
Too Many Choices! Some Candidates Need to Drop Out!
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
9 Comments. Leave new
Not only too many candidates, there are too many parties to the PTB’s liking.
Elections would be so much simpler without the pretense of party difference, when the difference lies mostly in style.
Like the auto industry, the differences are less under the hood than in trim, so the candidates offered by the parties are trimmers.
(trim·mer One who changes one’s opinions, especially in politics, to suit the needs of the moment. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/trimmer)
The main-stream news readers are the mindless, credulous pin heads that news watchers are expected to make themselves into, provided that the educational system hasn’t yet worked its magic.
Warren & Sanders are generally trailing Biden: but if you add their numbers together – their number is higher. The only one “still in the race” is Harris – but if you count all the stragglers there’s still 20 percentage points to be divvied up among the anointed. (and I doubt they’ll swing towards Biden)
oooo, latest NH primary poll puts Sanders up by TEN! A couple early wins could put him over the top.
Keep talking Uncle Joe, keep talking …
Are there really that many?
A lot of them are War Criminal Hillary Clinton superdelegates: party loyalists who firmly believe whatever the hell it is they’re told to believe. Harris or Buttigieg, it won’t make any difference. A black woman who conspired to keep innocent men in prison or a gay white guy who helped America occupy a sovereign country on the orders of Big Oil and the Military Industrial Complex. Would you turn your back on either?
Not sure, Ted, that soft drinks, motor cars, and socks are appropriate items of comparison to presidential candidates (even if they are sold with the same type of advertising) ; after all, in the former three cases, people are not being asked to pick one to rule them all. Perhaps reducing the powers of the imperial presidency and making the Congress once again the primary branch of government (as envisaged in the US constitution) would be a way out, but when one considers the «resolutions» passed by the latter on, e g, foreign matters, that doesn’t seem a brilliant idea either. Perhaps there is no solution and we are doomed to go under, led by our cleverness and our lack of wisdom….
Henri
Ted, may I humbly ask why, after nearly 12 hours, my comment above is still «awaiting moderation» – and indeed, why it awaited moderation in the first place. Have I broken any unwritten rules as to what may be posted to these threads ?…
Henri
There are three serious candidates–Sanders, Warren, and Gabbard–plus a placeholder for the Clintonite DNC kleptocrats pending the “surprise” entry of Michelle O or an equivalent. The rest are out to gratify their own egos, line up a lucrative “private sector” sinecure, or–just maybe–get chosen as VP.
Of the less-serious contenders: regardless of their motivations, they do help shift the discussion to the left. Jay Inslee is out, I never expected him to take the nom – but his climate change message did get the other candidates talking about it.
Thank you, Jay!
Inslee remains the best-placed as VP for Bernie or Liz. His quick exit from the circus tent once he had set the environmental agenda strengthened him immeasurably.