As I See It
Broader, better field of candidates needed
Doesn’t anyone want to be President anymore? As kids many of us may have dreamed of becoming the leader of the free world. But inevitably we seem to end up with the same candidates to choose from over and over again. In the 2024 contest, both of the main candidates have their flaws, leading some to wonder, isn’t there anyone better suited to the job? No one provided a serious challenge to Joe Biden in the primary, typical for an incumbent running for re-election. There were some dozen candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, but Donald Trump has steamrolled them all except one, and Nikki Haley’s departure from the race seems inevitable after she failed to win even her home state. Candidates like Chris Christie and Vivek Ramaswamy failed to energize their party’s base. Who else is out there to lead the Republican charge? For democrats, some are suggesting Biden step aside in favor of a less feeble candidate. But whom? Kamala Harris has even lower approval numbers than Biden. Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer are mentioned as possibilities, but would they challenge the party’s first female Black Vice-President? Probably not. So here we are, stuck with Biden and Trump again. Let’s hope in 2028, we get a broader, and better, field of candidates who hope to become the leader of the free world.
Paul
February 28, 2024 at 7:48 am
A broader and better field of candidates is a lot goal that I absolutely encourage. Republicans and Democrats have a lock on the election process. That has to change. Media and Inclusion in debates for all eligible candidates on the ballot is the answer. Yet, media teams up with Republicans and Democrats to prevent a broader and better field of candidates. And, Scott, The Wisconsin broadcasters association is participating in excluding legitimate candidates who have ballot access from participating in debates. The WBA has ruled a candidate must have $250,000 and poll At 10% To be included in The Wisconsin debate. While that sounds simple enough, it’s not. It takes a lot of money to win an election and you can’t raise that money from donors without exposure. You also cannot get 10% in political polling when holsters don’t include third parties. So third parties, like the libertarian part do not even get to participate in the conversation on the debate stage. I know what you and your readers will say to that. “Libertarians can’t win”. That I say it’s not about winning. It’s about participating in the conversation. What conversation? How about the dangerous unsustainable fiscal path the two-party system has put us on. 34 trillion in debt. Endless wars. Supporting the borders of other countries without supporting our own. Failing to address welfare entitlements which are bankrupting us. I could go on and on. Libertarians just want to be a part of the conversation. Being a part of the conversation to encourage the major parties to put us on a better trajectory for the sustainability of our country.
Walden
February 28, 2024 at 10:19 am
A wider field of candidates? Do yo think it encourages participation of candidates that both leading contender Trump and Democrat Kennedy are subject of multiple lawsuits all aimed by Democrats at keeping competitors off the ballet?
All in the name of “democracy” of course.
Putin is so proud of his U.S. understudies.