If we say he’s leading in the polls, then voters will have
less incentive to go vote.
If we say he’s behind in the polls, his supporters will see
him as weak.
If we appeal to his supporters, we’ll be seen as pandering
to his base.
If we court undecideds, his base will feel abandoned or
taken for granted.
If we’re considerate to his opponent, we essentially forfeit
the race.
If we attack his opponent, we’ll be seen as cruel and
dodging issues.
If we spend time addressing an issue, we’ll be seen as
avoiding another issue.
If we discuss every possible issue, we’ll get nothing done
and overwhelm the audience.
If we discuss his character instead of the issues, we’ll be
seen as annoying and shallow.
No matter what we say, his opponent will call us liars.
Yup. Politics is like statistics--you can interpret any way you want. After this go-round, I find myself feeling depressed. Peace...
ReplyDelete... and these will also be the reasons pundits sympathetic to the candidate's party will use to show why the candidate lost.
ReplyDeleteI'm not even in the US but I'm glad the elections are finally over. Maybe now Twitter can get to its usual amusing self.
ReplyDeleteIt's such a viscious circle....God bless America
ReplyDeleteSimilar issues beset us here. Both of our major parties like to claim to be the underdog in the lead up to any election. Or to say 'its going to go down to the wire', and similar annoying platitudes. And, if you voted for any of the candidates, you are going to get a politician. If the person/animal/entity you voted for was not a candidate you are going to be disappointed.
ReplyDelete