I will not be watching the debate tonight.
I mean, really, what’s the point? I’m already an informed citizen. I know the candidates well.
I know one is a highly-qualified, globally well-respected figure, and I know the other is a greasy orange rectal discharge that came to life when struck by lightning one Halloween night.
One is complicated and flawed; the other is a demonic carnival barker.
One is a politician. The other, a plague unto man.
The debate’s gonna stress me out. Here’s how it’ll play out: I’ll put the tiny human to bed and then sit down for a warm, comforting, relaxing sleepy-time presidential debate, which will pull me tighter than a hangman’s rope. Christ, I’m already battling a bout of insomnia. Watching the debate just before crashing out, I might as well hoover up a bindle of cocaine and settle in for the NEVERSLEEP NIGHTMARE RIDE.
I know what happens at the debate. I know. We all know.
I’m going to watch Hillary being nuanced and clinical, and I’m going to watch Trump bloviating and blowing oily chunks of word-vomit into everybody’s mouths, and I know the Political Commentary Corps will ding her for being imperfect and celebrate him for not calling the moderator a racist epithet. (“It’s very presidential how he did not use bigoted language tonight. Though he did stomp on a bag of kittens, but sometimes being a president requires tough decisions. Did you see him on Fallon? So chummy! Hillary, on the other hand, did not successfully convince us that she is not dying from a secret monkey-flu. And would it kill her to smile once in a while? Even though when she smiles, we then say we wish she wouldn’t smile, and we use hilarious memes to mock her. Women are so silly, thinking everybody is always sexist.”)
The other day I suggested that Trump was an antibiotics-resistant strain of gonorrhea, and though that was a joke, the more I think about it, the more I consider the metaphor apt. We are used to politicians fitting a certain mold, and Trump doesn’t. In a given day, The Donald does ten things that would’ve handily disqualified more qualified candidates. Think Howard Dean’s YEEEYAAAY scream, for instance. Trump, though, threatens nuclear war before breakfast. He’s going to court for like, 357 different things, one of them being child rape. And yet, he persists. Because we weren’t ready. We built up antibodies for politicians. We have no antibodies for this oily fuckmonster. We don’t know how to defeat a reality TV star. His antics got right past our defenses and now he’s inside the system, like a septic infection.
So, I know who I’m voting for.
Just the same, I have to be willing to admit I’ll change my vote if Clinton really does fall down in some areas, and I thought it useful here to highlight what those things might be, just in case she’s reading this. HRC, you do any of these things, you have lost my vote:
1. Rip off your face and reveal the pale grinning 1980s-smarmy rich-kid movie villain rictus of Donald Trump, Jr. “And I would’ve gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you meddlesome fact-checkers!” Ha ha ha, just kidding, nobody’s going to fact check this debate.
2. Kill one of my pets or children on stage.
3. …
3. uhhh
3. whhh
3. *clears throat*
Okay, that’s literally it. There is no number three.
I tried thinking of other things like, “What if she set fire to the moderator,” or, “What if she answered every question with a line from a Vanilla Ice song,” or “What if she left a one-star review of one of my books,” and y’know, nope, sorry, still gonna vote for her. Because Trump is the worst candidate in my memory, and likely the memory of all American history. The guy is a Grade-A Narcissist who will chop this country up and sell the spare parts to Russia. Hillary — who I like, who I respect, who I do not consider the lesser evil — could literally be a new model of Terminator Robot sent to Earth to destroy us and I’d still be like, “Well, at least our deaths will be quick and clean, and maybe we can change her like we did the Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Resistance Infiltrator, and she can say things like, HASTA LA VISTA, DONALD and we’d all have a good laugh and a good cry as lava consumes her metal exoskeleton.”)
And of course I’m not going to switch my vote to a third-party candidate because I’d have better luck trying to defecate a living, breathing unicorn. As much as I wish we had a viable third-party system, we don’t, and the possibility of electing a third-party candidate — without electoral reform! — is a hair’s breadth from zero. (Never mind the fact that these two third-party candidates are a pair of chuckleheads anyway. Neither is qualified to lead a country line dance much less the actual country.)
So, my vote is set.
Pretty much no matter what.
Enjoy the debates. I’m gonna watch cartoons and eat a bowl of cereal.
Hillary, please don’t kill my pets, please and thank you.
Elaine says:
That goes for me too.
September 26, 2016 — 9:05 AM
Sarah_Madison says:
Yep. Pretty much covered it there.
September 26, 2016 — 9:08 AM
Jason says:
Like you, I will not be watching the debates tonight. Unlike you, I will not be voting for Hillary….or Trump. Neither one cares one hill of beans for the average American (nor does their party, which isn’t allowing Gary Johnson to debate). I’ll be voting the candidate who is closest to my principles.
if a Republicrat wins, we be screwed, yo.
September 26, 2016 — 9:08 AM
Jason says:
Should say respective party.
September 26, 2016 — 9:09 AM
terribleminds says:
I admire you voting for your principles.
But just the same, I can’t agree with you, because Gary Johnson can’t win, won’t win, and doesn’t matter. The system does not support it. His win is literally impossible, and that’s by the old definition of the word “literally,” not the new, softer definition.
Voting for a third party candidate is a waste of a vote.
Further, I’ll note that Clinton would seem to care very much about the average American, and all it takes to see that is to see her efforts on behalf of the victims and first responders of 9/11.
— c.
September 26, 2016 — 9:20 AM
Jason says:
Ibgo by this motto, Chuck: “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost” – John Quincy Adams
Agree to disagree. In any event, I eagerly await Book 3 of Star Wars: Aftermath.
September 26, 2016 — 9:24 AM
terribleminds says:
Thanks, Jason, and enjoy the book.
September 26, 2016 — 9:34 AM
Samantha Warren says:
I’ll go so far as to say that voting third party in this election is not just a waste of a vote, it’s voting for Trump. Protest votes typically take away from the Democratic party, not the Republican, and if I recall correctly, wasn’t it protest votes back in 2000 that put Bush 2 into office? This is the wrong election to vote ‘on principal’. Even Bernie has said as much.
September 26, 2016 — 9:40 AM
Anonymous Poster says:
Everyone knows the electoral system could use reform; we don’t need Jill Stein getting 1% of the electoral vote to tell us so. A chucklefuck like Gary Johnson getting 2% of the vote (if he’s lucky) won’t kickstart any meaningful change in politics. “Protest” votes aren’t a vote in the best interests of the country—they’re an ego boost, a way of staying beholden to the sick idea of “political purity” while actively forgetting how the election is about who will govern the country (and everyone in it who isn’t you).
Political purity is bullshit. Political pragmatism gets shit done. If you want to keep Trump out of the White House, either you vote for Clinton or you get on your knees and pray to whatever deity (or deities) you think will listen. Voting for a third-party candidate will get you nowhere.
September 26, 2016 — 6:04 PM
Chris Crawford says:
That kind of manipulative shit is exactly why our choices seem to be getting worse every election. Clinton only seems honest and trustworthy in comparison with her opponent. Rest assured, they’re both at the shallow end of the bell curve.
You think Trump/Clinton is as bad as things can get? I’m guessing no.
September 26, 2016 — 6:57 PM
dangerdean says:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/1/1555457/-Fact-Hillary-Clinton-Is-One-of-America-s-Most-Honest-Politicians-Trump-is-one-of-the-biggest-liars
September 26, 2016 — 7:31 PM
paigevest says:
I’m with Chuck, Hillary is not the lesser of two evils. She is qualified, respectable, badass, and presidential. She *does* care about Americans. She will do her very best for our country.
She won’t be perfect… nobody is perfect. But she’s not only going to be a damned sight better than Trump would be, she’s going to be *infinitely* better than Trump would be.
September 26, 2016 — 11:53 PM
Chris Crawford says:
And there’s where we differ. Yes, she deserves to be grouped with our other “most highly qualified” presidential candidates. For instance, Nixon and Bush I. Yes, she’s definitely badass enough to start a war with Iran, and continue killing innocents with our drone program. Yes, she’s Presidential in the same way as most of the men before her. Yes, she’s better than Trump (but I’d vote for my cat ahead of Trump, so that’s not a high bar.)
However, based on her history and actions, I DON’T TRUST HER. She won’t really help the middle class. She won’t stop the assault on our civil rights and privacy. She won’t make the world a safer place. She won’t change our country’s income inequity. She owes too many favors, has been paid off by all the wrong people. Yes, there will be good things done, but we’ll continue our downward slide toward authoritarianism.
Trump is the bigger liar.
Clinton is the better liar.
And the Democrats are telling me I’m wrong to care about that.
September 27, 2016 — 8:21 AM
Anthony says:
You’re using a logical fallacy. The Nader thing has been debunked numerous times. here is one place where you can read more about it: http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/
A vote for Gary Johnson does not put a single vote up in either Trump or Clinton’s vote. The rigamarole that voting for a third party person, or voting for one’s conscience (if it’s not for Hillaryin this election) is a vote for Trump is actually fear mongering. You are using fear of Trump to try and get someone who disagrees with your candidate to vote for your candidate because the other is worse.
Chuck’s post has some bad reasons to not vote 3rd party (they can’t win without election reform.) And some good reasons (he doesn’t feel they’re good for the job.)
But if someone votes for Johnson they’re not voting for Trump, they’re voting for Johnson. The argument shouldn’t be “why would you do that?” but “what could be done to make you see that this candidate is better for you?”
Al Gore didn’t lose because some people who might have voted for him voted for Nader. He lost because a boatload more democrats voted for Bush than Nader. Each of those votes was actually 2 blows against Gore. First it was a vote they were counting (a registered democrat) not actually going in their favor. Second, said vote actually went into the direct big party opposition.
You can disagree all you want. But using fear to influence people’s vote isn’t the action of the good guys. It’s how the Empire works.
September 27, 2016 — 8:54 AM
Jason says:
Well said!
September 27, 2016 — 9:11 AM
terribleminds says:
You say “fear,” but I say it’s reality. If I say, “If you put your hand in that hole, a bear will bite it off,” it may scare you, but fear is not the goal — informing you of the consequences and realities is what I’m telling you. It’s not “how the Empire works.” Me telling you to wear your seltbelt even though you feel like the seatbelt restricts your personal liberty is not the Empire.
A third-party vote will do nothing. At best, it’ll land with a whisper — a bug on a windshield. At worst, it’ll lend itself to a Trump presidency.
And you bet if Trump is elected, third party politics will take another kick to the nuts, just as it did when Nader came around. You want third-party to be viable? Now is not the time to try to build that sand castle. Trump wins, it will only cause more anger toward those who wanted to vote in that direction.
(And yes, Nader did *help* to cost Gore that election —
“Nader won enough votes in two states — Florida and New Hampshire — to put either of them in Gore’s column. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which easily could have swung the election to give Gore the state’s 25 electoral votes, and there would have been no need for a recount. Even without Florida, adding Nader’s 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote to Gore’s 47 percent would have given Gore a 270 to 267 victory in the electoral college.”
From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-nader-cost-gore-an-election/2015/02/05/3261cc22-abd2-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html?utm_term=.e75e95390955 )
(Be wary of linking to DISINFO as a genuine site full of genuine information.)
You are free of course to vote for who you want. You can vote for a bag of grasshoppers. And I am free to tell you that it will not get that bag of grasshoppers elected, and that the playing field as it is presently designed will not support it. It won’t. Google it. Look it up. Ask a political scientist. Reality is not in its favor, and voting on “principle” is just some privileged nonsense that lets you throw your vote in a urinal while still retaining a good feeling in your heart. Should the system better support a third-party win? Yes. Is voting for third-party in this election going to swing momentum in that direction? No.
I know we don’t like being told true things when they make us uncomfortable, but this is one of those things, and this is one of those times.
September 27, 2016 — 9:14 AM
decayingorbits says:
Well said — I’m voting 3rd party and proud of it. If Donald Trump happens to win, tough shit I guess. There is no way I can vote for him. There is no way I can vote for morally & ethically bankrupt Hillary Clinton either. My vote is my vote. If I don’t vote at all, it has the exact same impact on the 2 major candidates.
September 28, 2016 — 6:01 AM
Chris Reher says:
Hilary has a long history of caring for Americans (and, via her foundation, non-Americans, too). I don’t personally don’t know anyone who, in conversation, voices distrust for her or says they don’t like her. But perhaps that’s because I’m in Canada and we think she’s super.
I have a feeling that this “distrust” and “unlikability” is someone’s (cough, Fox TV, cough) opinion bouncing around the echo chamber for the past forty years.
On the other hand, Johnson wants to move to another planet to avoid the whole climate change debate. As a writer of sci-fi, I’m all over that.
September 26, 2016 — 11:59 AM
pedaltrash says:
Interesting. In the southern reaches of the US, I have yet to meet more than a handful of people that DO trust her. Even the ones voting for her (and that’s admittedly few here, frighteningly) believe she has been deceptive in some form. The mention of her name turns many – MANY – otherwise rational people in to frothing humans who apparently advocate murder as a way to solve political problems.
I will be voting for Hillary. I don’t think she’s any more dishonest than the average politician, but I don’t think she’s any LESS dishonest either. Of course, it still beats Trump.
September 26, 2016 — 2:21 PM
paigevest says:
I don’t understand the frothing-at-the-mouth response that you mentioned. People just use Fox News buzzwords when Hillary’s name is brought up…. like my own mother. Liar! Benghazi! Emails!
She couldn’t even name one thing that she had lied about. She just responded to my inquiries with emails and Benghazi.
People don’t even know why they hate her, they just hate her because Fox News, etcetera tell them they should.
September 26, 2016 — 11:56 PM
Samantha Warren says:
I’ve been a fan of Hillary since she was First Lady. I might be in the minority on that, but she’s always been one of my favorite politicians (to be fair, I don’t really like politicians on principal, but everything I’ve seen from her since I was a kid makes me like her and trust her as much as I would trust any politician (though I think Bernie would have been a good change for the country). A lot of the distrust and unlikeability is related solely to sexism. And a lot of people don’t even realize that’s why they don’t like her. I had a discussion with one of my coworkers a few weeks ago. She said she didn’t like her. We discussed why, but she couldn’t really pinpoint it. After some more talk, I said, “Do you think maybe it could be because she stayed with Bill after he cheated on her?” She thought for a bit and realized that’s exactly where her dislike stems from.
September 26, 2016 — 7:11 PM
lovethismadness says:
I’ve been intrigued by Gary Johnson, thrilled that an actual libertarian has been doing well in the polls in comparison to past libertarians, and he seems to adhere more to the actual libertarian philosophy than past libertarians (a woman’s choice concerning abortion, legalization of marijuana, pro-same sex marriage, drug decriminalization), but the man has no chance. I would love if libertarians replaced the GOP, but I think the work needs to start in local elections. Libertarians need to prove that policies like legalizing marijuana works in various states and when people benefit from taxes on marijuana, maybe they’ll like libertarians more.
I picture this way: third party voters want Uber but the only options they have in front of them is Taxi Trump and Taxi Clinton. They can wait 4 years for their Uber or they can choose one of the taxis to get to an appointment where they decide the fate of the country. Taxi Clinton has done some questionable things, but she’s known to get you to your destination alive. Taxi Trump has never driven a taxi before, he has a minor obsession with nuclear weapons, and has been known to have road rage whenever he feels slighted. There’s a significantly increased chance that you’ll die–likely for a stupid reason–and that your surviving loved ones will now have lifelong enemies. Even if you wait for that Uber, you will still live with the consequences of who other taxi-riders have chosen and, because of the Supreme Court, it will likely last for much longer than 4 years.
September 26, 2016 — 12:00 PM
Deborah genovesi says:
Chuck, your writing is genius level. Seriously entertaining. I think you are my spirit animal.
September 26, 2016 — 9:13 AM
paigevest says:
Pottermore says that he’s my Patronus.
#PatronusWIN
September 26, 2016 — 11:57 PM
inkgrrl says:
Pottermore says my Patronus is a stoat, but I think I’ll name it Chuck.
September 27, 2016 — 2:07 PM
Bree says:
Just to clarify – you said she COULD kill your children/pets, just not up on stage…
September 26, 2016 — 9:14 AM
mannixk says:
Do you think maybe she could answer every question with a line from a Vanilla Ice song? That would be pretty awesome.
September 26, 2016 — 9:14 AM
Suzanne Lucero says:
Personally, I’m not excited about the Trump branding process. I refuse to become the United States of Trump, regardless of the prestige he thinks it will bring.
September 26, 2016 — 9:14 AM
JD Paradise says:
What if it was the Trumpnited Trumps of Trump, though, full of Trumpian trumpizens? Would you feel better about that?
September 26, 2016 — 10:12 AM
paigevest says:
*assumes fetal position and cries*
September 26, 2016 — 11:58 PM
dangerdean says:
Well, there is precedent. Our (Canada’s) xenophobic, LEGO-haired former prime minister changed all Government of Canada letterhead to read The Harper Government.
I hope you guys avoid the same path.
September 26, 2016 — 7:36 PM
Vee says:
Yep. I preferred Bernie, but I’ll vote for Hilary because the other options are not really options, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t need to see the debate, it’ll just make me churn stomach acid and swear at the TV. Instead I’m gonna fire up the laptop, listen to “Bring up the Bodies” by Hilary Mantel, and try not to draw parallels between politics today and politics in the 1530s.
September 26, 2016 — 9:19 AM
sierramar says:
I am not from the States, but I like to read somebody writing it so clearly 🙂
September 26, 2016 — 9:22 AM
Kit says:
Read a great idea, wish I could remember where. Clinton should start with, “Since the moderator won’t be fact checking, I’m going to use this dog training clicker every time my opponent tells a lie.” Fifteen minutes tops before Trump would lose it.
September 26, 2016 — 9:26 AM
Deborah genovesi says:
LOVE! Or better yet, and air horn.
September 26, 2016 — 9:50 AM
Vee says:
Now *that* I would watch.
September 26, 2016 — 11:19 AM
paigevest says:
That would be amazing!
September 26, 2016 — 11:58 PM
Susan Kimbrell says:
OMG! You have just said it better than I could have said it myself. I go around every day shaking my head trying to figure how anyone in their right mind could be for Donald Trump. But I am going to watch the debate just so I can underscore the difference between a buffoon and a real president.
September 26, 2016 — 9:27 AM
Lynne Connolly says:
Who’d have thought that Back To The Future II would be a prophecy?
September 26, 2016 — 9:32 AM
Will Hose says:
Totally agree, sir. I plan to watch it later (recording it on DVR unless the recording itself makes the DVR spontaneously vomit spiders) but I might not; who needs to wallow, right? Keep on writing excellent things and I’ll be there reading them.
September 26, 2016 — 9:52 AM
paigevest says:
Take video when you start to play it, just in case your DVR actually does spontaneously vomit spiders. That would creep me the fuck out but I would probably pay money to see it.
September 26, 2016 — 11:59 PM
J.F. Constantine says:
I have said it before, and I’m saying it again, with a little extra on the end: I love you – and every single effing word of this post. You abso-effing-lutely nailed it!!! **smooches** to you and your awesome family. P.S. I’m not watching that damn debate either. I, too, covet sound sleep. 🙂
September 26, 2016 — 9:57 AM
Thalia says:
Chuck, I love you, in the “you say what needs to be said, Hallelujah!” way.
Preach.
September 26, 2016 — 10:04 AM
mariceljimenez says:
I’m confused Chuck. The killing would only change your vote if it happened “on stage”? Me? Since us colonized individuals don’t have a right to vote, it’s pointless to watch. No decisions to make. But I might, because I’m a masochist who loves scary movies.
September 26, 2016 — 10:24 AM
debaumer says:
So perfectly stated, Chuck! Thanks esp. for mentioning that one thing – the child rape – that seems to have bypassed nearly every single journalist’s, broadcaster’s, and other writer’s radar. My vote goes to Clinton, too, unless she withdraws, and I just don’t see that happening.
September 26, 2016 — 10:39 AM
Brittany says:
I’ve taken to calling Trump ‘Zaphod Beeblebrox’, because this situation is just uncanny enough to be written by a snarky British author.
September 26, 2016 — 10:46 AM
pedaltrash says:
That seems an affront to Zaphod.
September 26, 2016 — 2:24 PM
paigevest says:
Definitely.
September 27, 2016 — 12:01 AM
Steve says:
So, I’ve bought, read, and enjoyed half dozen or so of your books, and I usually dismiss political views of entertainers as simple left partisanship. But as one of your regular readers I think your Twitter-esque feces-flinging adds to the body of low-brow ridiculous argument that we can all do without.
September 26, 2016 — 10:57 AM
terribleminds says:
See, here’s the thing, Steve. First, my politics tend to creep into my books. Second, I don’t much care for the attitude that YOU STAY QUIET OR I WON’T READ YOUR BOOKS ANYMORE, because that’s a silencing tactic put forth by bullies. Third, my career as WRITER OF THINGS should not supercede my existence as AMERICAN PERSON WITH VERY STRONG FEELINGS ON THIS SPRAYING ARTERIAL WOUND OF AN ELECTION. I have thoughts, I have the right to say them in my space, and it should not be a surprise that I am an opinionated person. I have never not been, and further, my job as a writer lends itself pretty nicely to, well, writing those opinions down.
For you, if that leaves you in a tough position regarding my work, I’m sorry. I like to hope that it means you’ll be able to get past it. But if you can’t, then I wish you adieu, and hope you find other writers who make you more comfortable with their views.
September 26, 2016 — 1:29 PM
paigevest says:
It never ceases to amaze me how people think celebrities and artists and the like shouldn’t publicly voice their political opinions. Just… wut?
September 27, 2016 — 12:03 AM
Mariah Avix says:
I read a Sci-Am article this morning grading the candidates on their scientific literacy (which is my personal hot button issue). Not only did Hillary do way better than Trump (duh) but overall she did way better than everyone. The one thing that kept coming up was that her positions were nuanced. Quite frankly I want someone who understands nuance. (Sorry Gary Johnson has zero nuance, Jill Stein had more than expected, but my expectations were low. Trump thinks nuance is the name of is next wife.)
So I felt good before. I feel better now. Go Hillary. Go nuance.
Debate? Too much and not enough all at once.
September 26, 2016 — 11:16 AM
Michelle Hunt says:
“Trump thinks nuance is the name of his next wife?” Love it!
September 26, 2016 — 6:49 PM
Alexis Bellido says:
I would love it if Hillary were a new Terminator model but just in case, I hope the moderators have some orange, hot, and always helpful lava at hand.
September 26, 2016 — 11:27 AM
Chloe Jeffreys says:
Love.
September 26, 2016 — 11:29 AM
Tina says:
“All right stop,” she says. “Collaborate and listen.” And yep, she’d still get my vote too.
September 26, 2016 — 11:31 AM
Steve says:
Jesus, Chuck, you gotta start letting people know how you really feel! You can’t keep bottling it all up like that! 🙂
September 26, 2016 — 11:43 AM
Barrett says:
Thanks, Chuck. Now I’m not afraid of the debates!
September 26, 2016 — 11:45 AM
drivenb4u says:
Umm technically it would be an endoskeleton. But everything else, yeah!
September 26, 2016 — 12:08 PM
sewcraftyme says:
I feel the same way you do Chuck. . Thus far my decision has been based on ‘I’m voting for the candidate least like to get us nuked or to nuke another one’.
I can easily fill in #3. I’m also voting for Hillary because she believes in, and practices the simple art of reading and enjoying it. I won’t have to worry about Banned Book week becoming Banned Book All the Time, a la Fahrenheit 451. Might seem like a little bitty issue, but where would we be without our freedom to read books we choose, and our ability to read authors we choose, like you Chuck? There are very few things I am scared of, but Trump scares me from my head to my toes, from the exoskeleton to the outermost layer of skin and a few feet past that. Give him the power he wants and and our country as we now know it will not survive, nor will we ever recover.
Thanks for your time.
Ila in Portland, ME
September 26, 2016 — 12:11 PM
graminaondw says:
Yep. My first thought was “well, if she commits suicide on stage….” — but you know what? I’d vote for her dead body over Trump and be glad to have the choice. I feel like I *ought* to watch the debates, but I’m honestly not sure I can do it.
September 26, 2016 — 12:47 PM
paigevest says:
#imwithzombieher
September 27, 2016 — 12:04 AM
Michelle says:
I prefer to look at Trump like an incredibly toxic meme that piggybacked on a very contageous flu virus, which was genetically combined with a fast-acting cancer. Luckily there’s a very easy defense against the disease that is Donald Trump: go research the candidates.
Clinton has a long, impressive political career to look up, and much of her congressional voting record and past initiatives are just common sense. Trump has a series of epically failed business ventures and a smarmy ego-on-crack personality to base your decision of off. It’s not a complicated decision.
And, yeah, to all the people who are thinking of protesting the two party system by staying home or voting third party, this isn’t the year for that. We have a madman to stop. If you ever wanted to fight Hydra or Death Eaters or Indiana Jones Natzis or the Evil Empire in real life, this is your moment. Go vote Clinton.
September 26, 2016 — 1:05 PM
North says:
Love this, and agree wholeheartedly. Have a happy Monday =)
September 26, 2016 — 1:22 PM
Laurel Avery says:
If you believe Clinton is much different from Trump, you are seriously mistaken. One is a wolf, the other is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The only reasonable choice is Jill Stein if you want to try to wrest democracy from the jaws of corporate oligarchy. But it’s your choice.
September 26, 2016 — 3:17 PM
Alejandro De La Garza says:
Go Stein! It’s almost criminal that she and Gary Johnson won’t be included in tonight’s debate, just because they each didn’t attain that coveted 15% mark.
September 26, 2016 — 4:01 PM
Teresa Schulz says:
I agree with you. I think she was doing her own debate streamed online along side their to get her answers across for the American public. Very cleverly using lots of different technology (periscope whatever that is) … I’m sure you can find it somewhere.
September 26, 2016 — 4:23 PM
Lago says:
No… the difference is that Trump has zero political experience, doesn’t know the first thing about the intricacies of running a country, and has the education, intelligence and diplomacy of a squashed potato.
Have you heard any of the ridiculous, ignorant, racist things he’s said? Have you seen him mock a disabled reporter?
Have you noticed he has ZERO political experience and he thinks he’s qualified to run the United States?
Because I am Italian and I get Mussolini flashbacks every time he opens his mouth. It is absolutely ludicrous to claim he is ‘no different’ from Clinton, when she is at least a sane person with a functioning brain and capable of articulating a complex sentence.
Do remeber that your vote for Stein IS a vote for Trump. You are in fact voting for Trump, no matter the intellectual gymnastics you may use to convince yourself otherwise. I do hope you’re comfortable with that.
September 26, 2016 — 4:21 PM
paigevest says:
Clinton is vastly different than Drumpf. She’s dedicated her life to public service and has affected change in multiple arenas. She is the only qualified person running in this election. Period.
September 27, 2016 — 12:06 AM
Alejandro De La Garza says:
I’d rather have back surgery than vote for either Clinton or Trump. I’ve opted for Jill Stein. I know she’s a long shot, but I refuse to vote for Clinton just to keep Trump from winning. Choosing the lesser of two evils isn’t much of choice. I haven’t been this disillusioned about a presidential campaign since 2004. I hope we can build a colony on Mars soon. I need a respite from this madness!
September 26, 2016 — 3:59 PM
paigevest says:
*pinches bridge of nose*
If you truly believe Clinton is the lesser of two evils then you have not been paying attention.
September 27, 2016 — 12:08 AM
Robin Gillette says:
Jill Stein is a total nut job
September 26, 2016 — 4:04 PM
Kim Miller says:
Chuck, I agree with every word! I also believe that a 3rd party vote, in this election, is a vote for Trump. In a normal election, where two experienced, or at least not dangerous, people were running, I would say vote your heart. This, however, is not a normal election. This is ultimately a 2 choice election… Clinton, or the policies of the misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, hateful Trump. This is a man who wants to limit or remove the rights and protections of free press, non-Christians, POC, women, immigrants and members of the LGBTQ community. He believes that if we have nukes, we should use them. Hell, why not?! He’s in bed with a Russian tyrant. He has been accused of committing a sex crime against a child. He’s a monster. I would vote for anyone/anything before I would vote for him. It’s honestly the only way I will be able to sleep at night. Thanks for the blog, and this post.
September 26, 2016 — 4:13 PM
Jason says:
Kim,
To make sure I read this right: you’re voting for Clinton to keep Trump out?
September 27, 2016 — 9:01 AM
Teresa Schulz says:
Except Hill wants war with Russia, to kill Assad, and continue spending a third of your nations entire income on the military…. the very real prospect of nuclear war up there doesn’t bother you guys at all? Bernie had good ideas, but I think some political mafia have clipped his wings (not to mention corporate owned media) and Jill Stein has sensible ideas to move forward without war, without poverty and a more sustainable energy future. But hey, I live way down in New Zealand (where lots of rich people are escaping to because of said nuclear war looking more likely) so, I guess we just have prime seats to watch the fireworks. The nuclear winter will likely kill off the entire planet though, hence my need to put my two cents worth in here. But hey, its your circus …
September 26, 2016 — 4:14 PM
J. Christine Leach says:
We have two options. Only two. Jill has consistently been at 2% polling. Johnson is at 8% or so.
Our system is first past the post, (and so is NZ). If you don’t vote for the most likely candidate to win that you hate the least then the other popular candidate that you find less tolerable wins by default. There is no wiggle room based on the way the system is set up.
Our elections are not about policies or ethics. You cannot afford to vote for someone who truly represents your values, because there are probably not enough of you. You have to vote strategically for what little you can get between the two largest parties.
September 26, 2016 — 6:10 PM
Anonymous Poster says:
“You cannot afford to vote for someone who truly represents your values, because there are probably not enough of you.”
Exactly. If you want political purity, you want what’s best for you—and the election isn’t about only you. Those white guys who are yelling obscenities at Trump rallies? Their interests are at stake in this election. The black people to whom Trump condescends? So are theirs. Gay, straight, trans, cis, male, female, poor, rich, coastland, heartland, register jockey, bank owner, natural born citizen, naturalized immigrant—every last one of them has a stake in who wins this election and who leads this country for the next four years, regardless of whether they know that fact. Your job, as a voter, is to figure out who is best qualified to govern all of these people and cast your vote accordingly.
If you vote for a candidate because it gives your ego a boost—and third-party voting in a POTUS election is pretty much just an ego booster—you’re doing voting wrong.
September 26, 2016 — 7:31 PM
Jason says:
If you vote for the lesser of two evils (which Max Lerner reminds us is still evil), you’re also doing it wrong.
September 26, 2016 — 7:47 PM
Anonymous Poster says:
You don’t really have much of a choice here, though. You can vote for Trump, vote for Clinton, throw your vote away to a third party candidate, or not vote at all. The third choice there is arguably more harmful than voting for the candidate who isn’t qualified to be POTUS because you’re giving a vote to someone who will most certainly not win the election instead of giving it to the candidate that is qualified to be POTUS. And for what—the smug sense of satisfaction at saying “Well *I* voted for [Stein/Johnson/Vermin Supreme/Deez Nuts]”?
If you’re so hung up on political purity that you’ll never vote for someone from the two major parties—that you’ll throw away a vote that could go towards a viable candidate all to satiate your ego—you’re doing voting 100% wrong. This election is not exclusively about you or your political ideals. This election is not about a “revolution”. This election is about who is best qualified to govern the people of the United States. Your responsibility as a voter is to consider their interests in addition to yours and vote accordingly.
If you want to abdicate that responsibility, that’s your right. But you’d do well not to complain if you throw away your vote and Trump wins.
You will have helped put him there, after all.
September 26, 2016 — 8:23 PM
Jason says:
Anonymous Poster, neither Trump nor Clinton are qualified to govern, IMO.
September 26, 2016 — 9:59 PM
paigevest says:
Beg to differ, Jason. Secretary Clinton is probably the most qualified candidate ever to run for this office.
September 27, 2016 — 12:09 AM
Jason says:
Anonymous poster, voting for one candidate to keep another out is throwing your vote away. Voting for a party because you’re a member, regardless of the candidate, is throwing your vote away. Voting your conscience and backing a candidate who shares your principles is never throwing your vote away.
September 27, 2016 — 8:59 AM
J. Christine Leach says:
It is in this system.
September 27, 2016 — 3:44 PM
Tim Whitcher says:
Both will be ridiculous. Idiocracy has arrived.
September 26, 2016 — 4:41 PM
woodsstock says:
I enjoy most of your posts, when bereft of political notes. But as you might say of poets today, keep to your craft and don’t go astray.
As much respect as I have for you in all your literary accomplishments and in your writing, your political views mean less than nothing to me and your need to projectile vomit what seems a truly unfettered bias all over what I consider an otherwise entertaining and fruitful space for playful and valuable literary introspection is to me, your fan, a waste. I’ve ignored a few of your political meanderings but for the sake of a continued and desired readership in me, I ask you consider what you’re doing and why you’re doing it.
I’m not sure I’m voting. I’m no fan of either candidate. They both suck. And the cynic in all of us could do many a parody with either of these sad sots and the state of our country when this when we’re asked to make a choice between the two. I’d guess most people, especially your readership, feel this way. So stick to your guns, son. This is you space to do with what you like but soiling a nest results in stinky sticky feathers and who truly enjoys rolling around in that?
CW
September 26, 2016 — 5:12 PM
terribleminds says:
You asked.
And I answered.
https://storify.com/ChuckWendig/should-writers-and-artists-speak-out-politically
September 27, 2016 — 7:51 AM
J. Christine Leach says:
Why is nobody on the cable news wheel of insanity talking about the child rape?
I do not understand people.
September 26, 2016 — 5:52 PM
Angie Dickson says:
Hilary did very excellence. She got my vote
September 26, 2016 — 11:25 PM
Mike Reyome says:
Thanks, you said it perfectly.
September 26, 2016 — 6:05 PM
Chris Crawford says:
Good luck ever getting electoral reform while still giving support to one of the major parties. A vote for Trump tells the RNC “We absolutely love our shit sandwiches and want more, please!” A vote for Clinton tells the DNC “We can play as dirty as we want in the primaries to manipulate votes, and they’ll support us anyway!”
Screw that.
The only way I could waste my vote is to let it support a corrupt system that feeds on our fear of the other party. Feel free to hold onto your pipe dream of electoral reform as you cast a vote towards the criminals benefiting from it all.
September 26, 2016 — 6:47 PM
Anonymous Poster says:
You want reform? Go ground-up. Put people in local and state offices who agree with you and will push for electoral reform. A POTUS election is no place for a “revolution”.
September 26, 2016 — 8:31 PM
Chris Crawford says:
Getting momentum from major elections is how you fuel the ground-up reform. It’s what encourages donations for local funding.
Telling people to let go of their principles so the other guy won’t get elected CANNOT end up leading to a principled government. I just wish you guys would admit that “Lying and cheating are fine as long as my candidates win.” At least then I’d feel you were honest.
September 27, 2016 — 8:05 AM
Anonymous Poster says:
I’d vote for a Republican candidate if I thought they’d make a better leader than a Democratic candidate. I am not beholden to any one political party; I am beholden to the principle of voting for the most qualified candidate. Of Clinton, Trump, Stein, and Johnson, Clinton is – beyond any doubt – the most qualified person on this election’s ballot to be President.
Also: If you’re a third-party candidate who wants “donations for local funding”, it might help to actually have a role in local politics that would make people want to fund you and your campaign. A ground-up grassroots movement that wants to succeed requires tangible goals and meaningful movement towards achieving them. A “revolution” doesn’t end well; a movement aimed towards a goal and working to achieve it step by step does. (Just look at the LGBT civil rights movement.)
September 27, 2016 — 6:46 PM
Kyle Delaney says:
I’d like to point out that voting for a third-party candidate makes a statement whether or not that candidate wins. If you haven’t considered that then you haven’t thought this through, and if you’re voting based on who other people are voting for rather than who best represents you then you’re working against the democratic system.
September 26, 2016 — 7:18 PM
Jason says:
I am just curious, how many folks voting for Hillary are doing it because they actually think she’d make a good leader? From what I gather, most people are voting for her because she is the lesser of two evils.
September 26, 2016 — 7:24 PM
Anonymous Poster says:
Hillary has the temperment, the knowledge, and the political experience necessary to be a good leader. Trump has none of those things, and he’s a racist demagogue to boot. Stein and Johnson are practically caricatures of political candidates (and they stand no chance of winning more than a proportional handful of the electoral vote).
Of the two major party candidates and the two main third-party candidates, Hillary is the person most qualified to govern the country as President. I’m voting for her because of that. (And to keep Trump out of the Oval Office.)
September 26, 2016 — 8:28 PM
Toni says:
That’s exactly how I feel, too. Thanks, Anonymous Poster!
September 26, 2016 — 9:08 PM
paigevest says:
I’m voting for her because I think she is the most qualified candidate, as I just said in response to one of your comments above. She’s got an impressive record of Public Service, she did great things as Senator, and to be honest I think she was a damn fine Secretary of State. I’m impressed by the work she did for 9/11 first-responders, her foundation seems to be beyond reproach… and she has withstood unprecedented criticism and bogus investigations from the right and the media, with Grace and dignity. She is genuinely badass and I will be proud to vote for her in November.
September 27, 2016 — 12:12 AM
wagnerel says:
I think she’s as qualified to be POTUS as any candidate has been in my lifetime, and I’m definitely not holding my nose when I vote for her. I have a couple of things I’m concerned about, which would likely be true of any candidate, but overall I’m happy she’s the nominee.
September 28, 2016 — 2:36 AM
annwjwhite says:
She would make a good leader. We’ll have pens, paper and envelopes ready to send her our views on her performance. I have children. This is their world and they’ll have to survive in it. They are well educated. They understand that the first and most influential election that needs to be decided is the local and state offices. Then the federal system must be voted in which will provide for the welfare of the US population. We are a varied population from many different places. those who scream the loudest about fire in the theater are not the ones I want leading us. Hilary is a well educated woman. Yes, she’s wealthy. Yes, she’s made mistakes. But she has never requested her backers to beat, savage or kill in her name. She has never gone bankrupt while becoming richer watching her employees lose the pensions and benefits. She is the one that pushed through the Medi-cad programs for the children of the poor that needed health care. She endorsed programs that provided food for the needy. She’s worked with people who have different opinions from hers and listened. This involved some change of her opinions in responding to them. She never cried out, “I will sue. I will take my ball home and the hell with the rest of you. She’s is a competent woman, a human being and far above that orange mocking ape that aspires to mock us all. But I have no opinion on the subject as you can tell.
It’s not wrong to have an opinion in favor of former Secretary Clinton. I still am a supporter of the ideals that Sanders was unafraid to champion. Clinton has had to deal with his supporters and change her message as a lot of his points of view do make sense. I want a leader who isn’t afraid of learning new things and making thoughtful decisions. I may not agree with some things she will try, but she deserves the respect she has earned that she will continue to try to think of all of us as she moves in her career.
September 26, 2016 — 8:48 PM
Kjhakim says:
She did the first faux pas. Now you must vote for donald
September 26, 2016 — 11:55 PM
Jeff says:
BAM!
September 27, 2016 — 2:37 AM
iwritedumbshit says:
Trump supporters are dumb.
That is all.
September 27, 2016 — 2:01 PM
pulplives says:
The entire cycle this year is an exercise in absurdity.
It’s akin to saying your voting options are:
A) a politician, not dramatically different than all the other politicians you’ve been voting for since the Kennedy era.
B) ass cancer.
OR, if you don’t like those, you can vote for this
C) steak dinner, which will make you feel better personally but definitely will not prevent ass cancer.
September 27, 2016 — 2:17 PM
Rosie Hooten says:
The 3rd party choice is viable. But too much common sense for most to assimilate…#LetGaryDebate
September 27, 2016 — 6:01 PM
Dana says:
S.O. asked me to choose between debate and Game of Thrones. So Thrones was pretty good.
September 27, 2016 — 6:10 PM
Laure says:
I am looking at this from an outsider point of view, but I think I can predict a high incidence of social unrest in the USA if Trump wins this election. This would be in itself a disaster for everyone in the country.
September 28, 2016 — 8:01 AM