Why I Didn’t Vote for Joe Biden . . . or Donald Trump
Image
My absentee ballot went into the mail last week. It looked a lot like 2016’s ballot: conservative selections for various state and local positions, write-ins for President and Vice President of the United States.
I didn’t vote for Biden and Harris, because I believe they would be bad for the country. I didn’t vote for Trump and Pence, because I believe they’re also bad for the country. It’s not clear to me which would be worse, all things considered, but it doesn’t matter. Both major party tickets add up to “Absolutely no way do you get my vote”—not “maybe,” not “it’s a close call,” not “this is a tough decision”—just no. Emphatically, no.
I wrote in a couple of individuals who have demonstrated leadership ability, above-average wisdom, key conservative principles, and a sense of responsibility for their public discourse. They’ve also given me reason to believe that—if they were President and Vice President—they would see themselves as the leaders of the entire nation, not just those who already adore them.
They would attempt to persuade detractors rather than merely rouse their faithful and try to compel everyone else through policy.
So why didn’t I back one of the “electable” candidates? Several reasons.
1. I didn’t have to.
Much of the rhetoric on voting ethics assumes that no alternative exists to backing Trump-Pence or backing Biden-Harris. Actual ink on actual paper on the ballot I submitted proves that assumption is false.
Some object that failure to support Option A is defacto support of Option B. But a bit of reflection reveals that we don’t hold anything else in life to that standard, and rightfully so. Elections are not the exception.
I’m referring to the ethics of forced dilemmas—when someone wrongfully presents us with two bad options and insists we’re responsible for the outcome of whichever we choose. The truth is that the ones who created the dilemma are responsible, and no one else.
I had no hand in nominating Donald Trump. People with very different principles from me did that, and the national social cost of leaving voters with no suitable candidate to vote for is on their heads.
There is a third option. I took it. I don’t regret it.
2. It was not a “wasted” vote.
I realize that some are so focused on voting as a transaction (and on the immediate outcome of that transaction) that they can’t even begin to consider other factors. The fact remains, though, that as human beings, our principles, values and intentions play a huge role in the moral weight of our actions. We’re not machines, and our choices are more than mere math.
So a vote is an expression of beliefs and desires, regardless of how the electoral mathematics turns out. And for Christians, beliefs and desires matter—forever. It’s literally impossible to waste a vote, because votes are counted twice: once here below, as humans count, and once more above using a fundamentally different standard—just like everything else we do.
That said, for those who only see tangible, practical outcomes as real (an odd point of view for Christians!), I have arguments as well. Read on.
3. We won’t get a better result if we keep doing the same thing.
If you read the Federalist Papers and the views of many of the founding leaders of the nation, as well as the Constitution itself, it’s evident that there was a design they had in mind, and that design includes—ultimately depends on—the citizens choosing from among their own best and brightest to serve as the executive of the nation.
How did we get so far from that?
The answer is complex, but voting for candidates who fail the “basic leaderly character” test sure hasn’t helped!
I’m mainly talking to the “hold your nose and vote for Trump because he’s not Hillary and not Biden” crowd. Call me an idealist, but you’re going to develop a permanently sore nose if you keep making that compromise.
Moving past chronic rhinitis, consider what we know about political parties. They hate losing. When they lose, they reflect at least a little on why, and sometimes they learn and behave differently in the future. What the GOP needs is a lesson in the school of hard knocks. There’s no guarantee they’ll get the message—or that enough of them will get it to produce a better candidate in 2024, but if large numbers of GOP voters refuse to back Trump there’s at least a chance.
Rubber-stamping their abysmal candidates will never teach them to do better.
4. Government power doesn’t change minds.
Peter Drucker is credited with saying, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” He wasn’t wrong. While who controls the reins of power is a huge factor in what life is like for us and our families, and a huge factor in shaping the future of the nation, it’s only huge until you compare it to the biggest factor: the reins of persuasion. What matters most is what millions of individual humans actually believe and value and do.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how persuasive is Donald Trump as a voice for conservative ways of thinking?
At a time when virtually everyone recognizes that the nation is “polarized” and not listening to reason, we elected a president who is the quintessential polarizer, who listens to no-one he doesn’t already agree with, and who mischaracterizes opponents’ viewpoints—as well as hard, verifiable facts—almost as often as he exhales.
He is the anti-persuader.
He speaks to the dazzled-and-delusional crowd who view him through near messianic lenses. He speaks to the hold-your-nose and back him because he’s not Hillary and not Biden crowd. To the rest of the nation, the people who are most essential in this culture war, his communications have less than zero persuasive value. He flings verbiage at the center and the left like a middle-schooler throws cow pies and rotten eggs at an enemy’s house.
So what Trump offers to public discourse isn’t merely a zero in the people-won-over column. He pushes undecideds further from the things we believe in and galvanizes the committed left toward increased opposition to much of what we hold dear. (The old adage was never more apt: “With friends like these, who needs …”)
People of the center or left who were once for something (increasing funding for police training and technology, for example) often decide they’re against it as soon as Trump begins vocalizing support.
We may have already lost the culture war. 2016 may have sealed that outcome. Regardless, I’m against the current course of anti-persuasion and voted accordingly.
5. Character is upstream of politics.
The office of President of the United States is one of such high stakes that candidates must be filtered by some character essentials before we even begin to consider their political views and agenda.
- What if war breaks out (from outside the nation or within it)?
- What if a far deadlier pandemic than COVID-19 sweeps the world?
- What if a series of other natural disasters of unusual scale strikes the nation?
- What if mob violence and riots occur in five or ten times the number of cities we saw in 2020?
In these situations, sober-minded, competent, big-picture, adult leadership matters far more than Democrat or Republican. Political philosophy matters in these situations, but philosophy can’t compensate for basic character and competence.
6. There must be trust.
I can’t trust Donald Trump. He’s not unique in that regard. I can’t find it in my heart to trust anyone who openly admires dictators, who has at any time in his adult life publicly bragged about groping women, who fires employees by Twitter and publicly shames people who have loyally stuck their necks out for him over and over again, who has made disrespect of any and all who differ from him the one enduring principle of his public life.
I also can’t trust people who display a fondness for conspiracy theories and for encouraging others to do same. I’m talking about narratives that are clearly contrary to verifiable facts. If you’re out of touch with reality, I might be your friend; I might be your relative; I might like you personally; I might love you as a fellow Christian or a part of my family. But I can’t trust you.
It’s not that I won’t or don’t want to. I can’t.
“Trust” is always a scoped term: Trust for what? Trust to do what? In this case, demagogs, bullies, narcissists, and fantasy-worlders can’t be trusted to make decisions for the good of the organizations they lead. Whether it’s U.S. President or president of the town glee club, they don’t get my vote.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
A pastor friend of mine did the opening prayer for the President’s rally last night in Kenosha. This should not be!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Please…..you’ve got all kinds of things Trump and the GOP are doing that align quite nicely with Christian doctrine, not just abortion. Do we value Romans 13 and law enforcement? The GOP isn’t promising to defund the police. Concerned about national defense? Pallets of euros to the Iranians and fake lines in the sand aren’t helpful. Remember what happened in the 20th century with socialism? Democrats seem to forget. Have the possibility of getting sick, and not wanting to wait six months for an MRI? Republicans take what goes on in Canada seriously. Democrats, not so much. What about the law and the Constitution? Democrats think it’s an evolving document that they can move to their contentment—Republicans more often think it’s a fixed point of reference. That difference matters—it’s pretty much an analogy to Sola Scriptura.
Come on, folks, this ain’t so complicated.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I have long recognized the similarity between the way people view the Bible and the US Constitution. Conservatives believe the Bible should be understood as written, not re-written to suit their own preferences. Likewise with the Constitution. There’s a reason why Bible-believing Christians are almost always politically conservative. The opposite holds for Liberal Christians, who do not regard the Bible relevant as originally written, and political Liberals who do not believe the Constitution should be understood as originally written. If you believe the Liberal views of Scripture and the Constitution are both wrong and dangerous, you will no doubt support the political party which best aligns with your views.
I don’t understand the thinking that says, “Those Bible-believing churches are taking us Bible-believing Christians for granted. I’ll show them! I’ll start supporting a liberal, Bible denying church. That will teach em!” Really?
G. N. Barkman
The insistence that we only have two options is part of the slavery mindset: stay on the plantation or sink in the liberal, immoral morass. Open your eyes, my brothers. There are other options.
btw, I’m not opposed to voting for republicans, that’s not the point I’m making.
We have two viable options because that’s how our system is set up. Winner takes all. A parliamentary system is different, but at times even more objectionable because party leaders generally tend to tell their members how to vote except for “conscience” votes.
The way out here is to educate voters and start working, like in baseball, the farm clubs—local and state positions. Don’t like the clowns we get to vote for? Dittos. Fixing the problem starts with the local school board, city council, and the like. To get to the point where one can run for those offices, you need a job where you’re flexible enough to have some time off. (Dave Ramsey time, really)
A huge part of fixing things at the local level is to remind people that very often, the financials set forward by the federal and state governments are not true, and that their long term financial stability may require refusing “help” from the state or federal governments.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Free at last. Free at last! Thank God Almighty, I am free at last.
I am so thankful for the liberty that I have in Christ Jesus.
I am a slave to Christ alone.
I am not on a plantation.
Yes there are other options. But are they viable options? There is a 100 percent certainty, unless the Lord returns today, that Biden or Trump will be president and that Harris or Pence will be VP. Whom do you prefer? Compare Trump’s character to Biden’s and both have significant deficiencies. Compare Harris to Pence and Pence wins hands down. Since Harris will likely be president should Biden win, one has to compare her policies with Trump’s and Pence’s policies. What kind of judges will they appoint? Who will be in their cabinet? Who will support the police, the border patrol, the military? Who will stand up to China, Iran, Isis, Islamic terrorism? Who believes in capitalism or communism? Who supports abortion and the LGBTQ agenda? Who has actually helped the black community? Who believes in religious liberty and the bill of rights? The choices are clear and simple. The ostrich mentality doesn’t work.
Pastor Mike Harding
It is a very fair summary of what WILL result from your advice and example if enough people follow it. You may not “prefer” it, but it is the completely foreseeable and unavoidable result of your position if your position succeeds. And therefore it is not out of line to call you to account for it.
I have given reasons why (a) other outcomes will accompany those and (b) many positive outcomes can only be hoped for long term (cultural outcomes) if Trump is out of office and (c) there are other, very Personal “outcomes” in Heaven.
Aaron continues to insist that his position is more objective and therefore more correct, and yet apparently fails to realize that nearly all his assertions are actually quite subjective. For example, he assumes that God disapproves of a vote for Trump, but approves of a vote for a third party candidate, or no vote at all. And how does he know this?
See the article. Explained there. I didn’t claim “more objective.” I just provided reasons.
First, when I read Romans 13, I understand the role of government pertaining more to policy than to culture. But I would use the word authority instead of policy. All that being said, a godly government would have godly policy in spite of an ungodly culture. And in fact, the government exists to exercise authority, make policy which upholds what is good and punishes what is evil. In this sense (if I’m making any, lol) authority/policy is of utmost importance.
This is partly true, at best. But I also clarified in the article: Long term, what determines what people actually do? It’s their beliefs and desires. So, by “culture” I mean the hearts and minds of Americans. Policy doesn’t change hearts and minds (see the Pharisees, for example). But hearts and minds do change policy. What typically happens—especially in a democratic structure—is that popular belief trumps policy. (See Obergefell, for example.) It may ignore it, or it may change it.
- So, as a positive example, when enough people have a mind to stop killing babies in the womb, those numbers go down—as they have, even without overturning Roe v. Wade.
- For another negative example, when enough people hate what the Supreme Court is doing, they’ll support their Senators in confirming a court packing scheme.
Finally, though government’s job is authority/policy/coercion, the President has a huge effect on
- the culture of his administration,
- the culture of his party,
- the culture of his supporters across the nation and in the media, and
- the culture of the nation.
In Trump’s case, as I’ve already described at some length, he is anti-persuasive. He stirs his base, impacts (persuasively) the rest either not at all or negatively. A culture war cannot be won this way. I’m not saying shouldn’t, I’m saying can’t.
We have two viable options because that’s how our system is set up. Winner takes all. A parliamentary system is different, but at times even more objectionable because party leaders generally tend to tell their members how to vote except for “conscience” votes.
This is only true in the purely transactional sense. But 10 minutes after a winner and loser are known in an election, the losing party begins to analyze why it lost. It digs into all sorts of demographics, plans surveys, etc. If everyone voted as I did, I guarantee that by 2024 the GOP would be looking for a very different kind of candidate—because a large percentage of “former base” voted “I protest your nominee.”
So this kind of vote is a genuine third alternative that is literally counted (it’s just counted post-candidate-failure). Incidentally, rubber stamping whatever sort of candidate comes out of the nomination process is also an additional aspect of a vote. It says “by all means, keep nominating people like this; we’ll vote for them every time, no matter what.”
What kind of judges will they appoint? Who will be in their cabinet? Who will support the police, the border patrol, the military? Who will stand up to China, Iran, Isis, Islamic terrorism? Who believes in capitalism or communism? Who supports abortion and the LGBTQ agenda? Who has actually helped the black community? Who believes in religious liberty and the bill of rights? The choices are clear and simple. The ostrich mentality doesn’t work.
First, I’m advocating action. The ostrich mentality is the one that says “I’ll just look the other way and pay no attention to the many negative consequences (and meaning) of this ‘well at least he’s better than the other guy’ compromise.”
Second, I ask yet again, are all these problems going to be solved by policy alone? Are we going to muscle our way into enduring conservative solutions over a populace that doesn’t believe in them? Even if we get Trump in 2020, what do you think is going to happen in 2024? If you think the Left is mobilized and galvanized now, just wait till then. Four more years of Trumps anti-persuasive habits will probably result in reversal of all he accomplished and then some. Two steps forward nine steps back.
This is a culture war and you can’t win one of those coercively. If you win it at all, you win it persuasively. Policy always follows culture eventually.
So, character? At least face reality before you act like Trump is any different than any unsaved man with power.
So … Genghis Khan = Pol Pot = Kim-Jon-un = Muammar Gadaffi = Nero = Winston Churchill = Dwight Eisenhower = Abraham Lincoln = Trump because all unregenerate men of power have the same character?
Surely this is self evidently false, but there is Scripture:
- Ahab is not the equivalent of Cyrus
- Nebuchadnezzar is not the equivalent of Manasseh (the king)
- In Proverbs, the wise is not the equivalent of the fool, the simple, or the sluggard
- Herod is not the equivalent of Felix
I could go on. There are different kinds of character. In the article, I referred to “basic leaderly character.” Here’s a thought experiment that might be clarifying. Forget all about presidents and elections:
- List the five worst qualities of the worst boss you ever had (or the worst boss of someone you know well)
- List the five best qualities of the best boss you ever had (or of someone you know well)
- Convince someone who worked for both that the two really have the same character. (Best of luck with that.)
(In my case, both the best and the worst were not believers, but the two were profoundly different.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron, you continue to speak as if “The Republican Party” which chose Trump, are the people who will be analyzing the election to see what went wrong. They are not. The establishment Republicans did their best to defeat Trump. Far from choosing him, they strongly opposed him. He became the Republican candidate in spite of their best efforts to stop him. If candidates were still chosen in secret smoke-filled back rooms, as they were, to some extent, in the past, your reasoning might make sense. However, since Trump was chosen by Republican voters in the Primary, there really is no one to punish for this outcome. The people to whom you are sending a signal by your refusing to vote for Trump, are for the most part, “Never-Trumpers” who, like yourself, opposed Trump, and who lost control of the Party machinery to a Populist candidate. I’m afraid you have punished the wrong people.
G. N. Barkman
The establishment Republicans did their best to defeat Trump. Far from choosing him, they strongly opposed him.
The opposition was actually quite late and quite weak. Many didn’t really think it would happen.
But, to clarify, when I speak of the party, I mean the party that is now. Arguably in 2016, the party lost control to a populist movement, but in 2020 the party is “the establishment.” And if it loses, it will indeed analyze why it lost.
There was never any guarantee they’d learn what they should from the failure…. and as close as the election has turned out to be, whichever party ends up losing is somewhat less likely to embrace a bold change of course. Too many went ahead and backed one or the other of the “electable” candidates.
Still, I have seen some analysis that suggests the Democrats will track somewhat back toward the center because they were expecting a route of Donald Trump. That’s more likely if they lose. Somewhat less likely if they squeak out a victory. But they’ve seen a couple of unexpected losses in the House, so that encourages a bit of rethinking as well.
In the end, politics is about power, and the parties do not like to lose it. So the policy and rhetoric and emphases—and candidate selection—get re-evaluated some if they do.
But humans can be very stubbornly stupid, so, often, parties that ought to get a clue from losing do not. But there’s at least a chance.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Many conservatives would like to make “populism” a bad word, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of the middle class, including many minorities, started to see President Trump as their ally because he finally took concrete action to reinforce and augment a border wall (illegal immigration came to a standstill in his administration, really), reworked trade agreements in light of known episodes of cheating by our trade partners, and a fair amount more.
Trump did himself no favors with his reputation as a “male bovine scatter”, and his previous life as a bankrupt womanizer did him no favors either, but Republicans would be foolish to ignore how he was able to speak to the middle class and across racial and ethnic barriers.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It’s not a bad word. It’s just a bad thing.
Trump continues to confuse what he wants to be true with what is true:
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-again-declares-victory-claims…
So the narrative now is going to be that if he doesn’t win, it was fraud…. No matter what the facts or relevant laws are. And Trump’s populist base is going to champion this tale.
… Reminds me of how Al Gore was robbed of his rightful victory in 2000 ;-)
But we might yet be treated to four more years of everything Trump doesn’t like being “fraud,” “fake news,” and “a hoax.” … because officials are still counting, which is great if the numbers favor him…but fraud if they don’t. Just so we’re clear on the rules.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
It’s just true. Populism is simply a response to the fact that the elites too often write up, and selectively apply, the rules to their advantage.
Let’s draw a picture; when I worked for TRW at Space Park, HR made very clear in their onboarding that if I were caught with confidential information (or even in the confidential areas without a clearance), the FBI would have all of my electronic devices that day—and me as well. Now contrast that with the fact that Jim Comey didn’t even convene a grand jury, let alone get a subpoena, in the Hilliary Clinton server case.
But Comey DID indeed move Heaven and Earth to put Martha Stewart in jail for (allegedly) lying to investigators about matters that were not criminal in nature.
In a similar vein, Patrick Fitzgerald investigated the Valerie Plame unmasking for four years after he learned that there was no crime committed—snaring Scooter Libby for the same “crime.” BTW, it’s not a crime for the FBI to lie to those being investigated. (ahem) However, when there were very real crimes committed as Illinois Democrats were bidding for Barack Obama’s Senate seat, Fitzgerald’s office amazingly had a leak that prevented the investigation from naming those other criminals and putting them in jail. Fitzgerald also, in a breathtaking breach of ethics, “cleared” MSU of wrongdoing in the Nassar case without as much as a report.
Or in a different vein, isn’t it amazing how much effort the FBI put into investigating Trump based on a “dossier” that can only be described charitably as horse manure….but when Hunter Biden’s laptop clearly appears to show Joe Biden sold his position for money for his son and himself, the FBI sits on that one for half a year, claiming ludicrously they had no one who knew how to work on a Mac?
Regarding the election, isn’t it amazing that the areas having trouble counting votes are the areas controlled by Democrats…in basically every election? Isn’t it amazing that states leaning Democratic seem to be called way earlier than those leaning Republican?
When the beneficiaries of the “errors” are almost exclusively in one group, I stop believing that the “errors” are random or unintentional. Here’s another point of reference with the vote in Nevada. Oopsie, we just happen to have mailed ballots to thousands and thousands of people who didn’t request them, who might be dead, moved, or whatever. But no chance whatever that this would be a problem in vote accountability, nosirree.
Sorry, we need something like “blockchain” tracing so we can eliminate votes from nonexistent addresses and dead people.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Here’s an article from 2016:
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many…
Michigan did what states should do in 2016 and conducted an audit. It would be interesting to know what the findings were.
I’m with the conservative voices—many of them normally Trump cheerleaders—who are saying unsubstantiated claims of outcome-altering voter fraud are irresponsible, to put it mildly. (But in no way surprising behavior from Donald Trump.) But some of them are also saying where there is evidence, investigate and take legal action. That’s exactly right.
If we don’t have rule of law, we don’t have anything as a republic. That applies to incumbent Presidents as well. “Everybody says so on Twitter and Facebook” ≠ true.
Fortunately, the courts seem to be doing their job so far. I’m pretty sure all the “stolen election” nonsense, alarming as it is, won’t have much impact on how the election turns out.
But it will be the story many believe for years to come regardless of the evidence.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
, in my mind, is to approach polling in a totally different way than we would an ordinary audit. We have poll watchers and election judges for a reason, in the same way that industries have ISO and other audits to make sure they’re going to get the product that they’re hoping to buy. If a factory refuses to admit an auditor (in a non epidemic time of course), the auditor quickly files a report that revokes their accreditation. No ifs, ands, or maybes about it.
Same thing ought to apply with polls. Multiple cities, all run by Democrats, have refused to admit GOP poll watchers and lawyers as is required by law. They are admitting Democrats. They play the same games every election—report way late, kick out poll watchers and such, and amazingly, they seem to get enough votes to make the Democrat win in tight races.
Let’s do the math here.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
There are many allegations of poll watchers being illegally excluded from polls. We’ll slowly find out which allegations can be substantiated. Until then, they’re little more than rumors.
Audit, investigate, prosecute. Due process. It will mostly happen as it should.
On populism…
The trouble with populism is that it’s fantasy. Populism rhetorically privileges lack of experience, lack of knowledge, and lack of expertise—maybe even lack of character—because that makes the candidate “just like us ordinary folks.” In reality, it tends to only result in empowering leaders who are elite in an additional way: elite-level skills in dazzling the glandular masses into thinking they are “ordinary” and “not politicians” and “one of them” when in reality they’re rich and powerful and political just like all the other elites.
Populism gets you one of two things:
- If it works, you get mediocrity at best
- When it doesn’t, which is most of the time, you get better panderers and manipulators
I guess I’m a hard core elitist. I believe some people are way better at certain things than other people, and they should do those things and other people should get out of the way and let them. When it comes to power, I believe the more responsibility a position brings with it, the more extraordinary the skills and character should be in those who occupy it. The last thing I want a leader to be is an ordinary guy.
So, populism is not an achievable solution to bad elites. The solution to bad elites is good elites.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron, when it’s apparent that the FBI has been sitting on the Hunter Biden laptop in the same way they refused to seriously vet the report that started the Mueller investigation, and in the same way they issued no subpoenas in the investigation of Hilliary Clinton’s server and did very little work regarding the Nassar assaults, let’s just say that mediocrity would be a HUGE improvement vs. a lot of what they’re doing today. Mediocrity would be a huge improvement over the pattern of selective leaks to victimize conservatives, selective enforcement of tax laws by Lois Lerner et al, selective investigation that saw no real need to investigate Fast & Furious, selective enforcement of immigration laws, and the like.
When we’ve got clear evidence (video) of poll watchers being evicted as soon as they spotted and reported problematic ballots and practices, mediocrity (just basically following the law) would be a huge improvement. I’m as much a fan of excellence as anyone, but our choice today is not between excellence currently enjoyed and mediocrity. Our choice is between pathetic excuses for competence and mediocrity.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I know you always balk at these questions. Name a Republican politician that you know of who could have beat Biden (or even Hillary in 2016) this year, or at least give him a run for his money.
Said another way, name a Republican who could have gotten 70.5 million votes this year.
Featured Resource
Discussion