@Cassiodorus

If we don't love them -- then why do we elect them?

It relates to what they do at election time, which is other things than "baffle with brilliance".

then why do we elect them?

@Cassiodorus
to vote out of party loyalty for fraudulent candidates.

Here's Mark Twain in 1884,

This infamous doctrine of allegiance to party plays directly into the hands of politicians of the baser sort — and doubtless for that it was borrowed — or stolen — from the monarchial system. It enables them to foist upon the country officials whom no self-respecting man would vote for if he could but come to understand that loyalty to himself is his first and highest duty, not loyalty to any party name...

This is a funny business all around. The same men who enthusiastically preach loyal consistency to church and party are always ready and willing and anxious to persuade a Chinaman or an Indian or a Kanaka to desert his church or a fellow-American to desert his party. The man who deserts to them is all that is high and pure and beautiful — apparently; the man who deserts from them is all that is foul and despicable. This is Consistency — with a capital C.

and W.E.B DuBois in 1956, "Why I Won't Vote"

I shall not go to the polls. I have not registered. I believe that democracy has so far disappeared in the United States that no “two evils” exist. There is but one evil party with two names, and it will be elected despite all I can do or say. There is no third party. On the Presidential ballot in a few states (seventeen in 1952), a “Socialist” Party will appear. Few will hear its appeal because it will have almost no opportunity to take part in the campaign and explain its platform. If a voter organizes or advocates a real third-party movement, he may be accused of seeking to overthrow this government by “force and violence.” Anything he advocates by way of significant reform will be called “Communist” and will of necessity be Communist in the sense that it must advocate such things as government ownership of the means of production; government in business; the limitation of private profit; social medicine, government housing and federal aid to education; the total abolition of race bias; and the welfare state. These things are on every Communist program; these things are the aim of socialism. Any American who advocates them today, no matter how sincerely, stands in danger of losing his job, surrendering his social status and perhaps landing in jail. The witnesses against him may be liars or insane or criminals. These witnesses need give no proof for their charges and may not even be known or appear in person. They may be in the pay of the United States Government. A.D.A.’s and “Liberals” are not third parties; they seek to act as tails to kites. But since the kites are self-propelled and radar-controlled, tails are quite superfluous and rather silly.

The present Administration is carrying on the greatest preparation for war in the history of mankind. Stevenson promises to maintain or increase this effort. The weight of our taxation is unbearable and rests mainly and deliberately on the poor. This Administration is dominated and directed by wealth and for the accumulation of wealth. It runs smoothly like a well-organized industry and should do so because industry runs it for the benefit of industry. Corporate wealth profits as never before in history. We turn over the national resources to private profit and have few funds left for education, health or housing. Our crime, especially juvenile crime, is increasing. Its increase is perfectly logical; for a generation we have been teaching our youth to kill, destroy, steal and rape in war; what can we expect in peace? We let men take wealth which is not theirs; if the seizure is “legal” we call it high profits and the profiteers help decide what is legal. If the theft is “illegal” the thief can fight it out in court, with excellent chances to win if he receives the accolade of the right newspapers. Gambling in home, church and on the stock market is increasing and all prices are rising. It costs three times his salary to elect a Senator and many millions to elect a President. This money comes from the very corporations which today are the government. This in a real democracy would be enough to turn the party responsible out of power. Yet this we cannot do.

If these two titanic luminaries of letters, who occupy the very top of American literature, could find the temerity and fortitude to make such stands, when the winds of popular sentiment were heavily against them doing so, why aren't we similarly able to find their counterparts today?

How many heavyweights came out to say that they could not, and would not be pressured to, do so and defended their decision likewise?

then why do we elect them?

@thanatokephaloides

According to the Christian Scriptures, this applies even to the Ultimate:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

-- Christian Scriptures, Revelation 3:15-16 (KJV)
source

@SpamNunn

Bill's one of those charming, convincing psychopaths. Hillary's only got the last of the three.

Everybody loved Bubba, right?

PS: How could HRC be married to him for that long and still be such a miserable public speaker? She learned nothing.

@HenryAWallace @HenryAWallace voting for Macron as voting against Le Pen. She was odious enough that given that(I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong)there was no way of voting for another candidate, it was worth it to suffer through whatever Macron ended up doing because there was no way it could be worse.

Classic LOTE situation. Anyone can win if the opposition is bad enough and there are literally no other options allowed.

My understanding of foreign candidates is admittedly woeful. When Hollande ran, I thought he was a true liberal (without any corporate connotation), but it turned out he wasn't. Macron, however, was identified publicly as a neo-liberal well before election day.

If we keep voting for neoliberals in order to avoid helping a candidate who openly self-identifies as conservative, neoliberals (usually conservatives who are more glib) are the very best we can ever expect.

@Lily O Lady

That's all they had to offer... and they figured that you'd just have to sit on it and feed it with your blood, sweat and tears, since they've already drained most of what many Americans had or could have had in a just and democratic society and there wasn't much left to steal otherwise.

going through had Clinton won. We were offered two versions of Hell, so either way Hell is what we have. Our dilemma had two devil's horns.