It seems like many people feel that way about the past 2 presidential elections. Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been good candidates? The people who ended up being serious contenders were elevated to those positions by the voters in the primaries, so they had enough support on that level to make the cut. The primary system may be part of the problem, plus the fact that presidential campaigns start about 2 years before the actual election. I suspect that there are good people who just do not want to put themselves through that kind of all-consuming process.I don't know if I would say equally bad, but bad for entirely different reasons. It would take more thought than I'm willing to spend to get to which I think is actually worse ().
This is the second cycle in a row when I have been extremely disappointed in the people who ended up being "serious" contenders for the nomination from both parties. Trump. Clinton. Biden. Sanders. Ted Cruz. And so on.
I said during the last cycle when we were down to a "final four", Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders, that I wouldn't vote for any of the four for dog catcher, out of fear they'd give the dogs fleas, let alone President. I honestly can't remember at this point if I voted for the Libertarians (Johnson and Weld, who I also wasn't really enamored with) or if I wrote in my son, as I tend to do when I don't like the choices the parties present.
The problem is the primary's are only looking at half the electorate and the the dramatic shift away from the middle is only making it worse. Put it this way, and this is only a example, if 25 percent of dems are now marxist. They have a very big say despite only being 1/8 of the overall population. We saw this early on as those pepple primarily voted for bernie while the other candidates split up the rest of the vote. Problem is everyone else needed to shift to the left to get some of those voters.
