Vote against the candidate’s friends
The polls, unbelievably, show that 40 percent of Americans still haven’t decided whom they’ll pick in November.
These dimbulbs should not be allowed to vote.
I’m all for an informed electorate making a carefully considered choice, but come on: You know the candidates, you’ve been listening to them for more than a year, and you haven’t figured this out?
Don’t tell me you’re “waiting for the real campaign to start in September” or “weighing my choices.” You’re just not paying attention. Most of this nation’s problems over the last seven-plus years, and all of them for the last five, can be traced to voters who didn’t pay attention. Stay home this time. Study up for 2010.
If you must vote, though, I’ve come up with a plan that’s as close to idiot-proof as any I’ve heard: Back the candidate whose victory will piss off the people you’d most like to see pissed off. You don’t have to know anything about the individuals. You just read the endorsements to see if you get a positive or negative vibe, then follow your spleen.
My own mind was made up eight years ago, so I don’t really need this rule. Let’s say, though, that I’d been dozing since 2000. Suddenly I wake up and realize that in just a couple of months, I’ll be asked to choose a president. I know nothing about either candidate, but I do watch the news and recognize some names.
I take a piece of paper, and on one side I write OBAMA. On the other, McCAIN. Then under each name, I list the people who will be pissed off by a victory for that person:
George W. Bush (my personal debate ends here); George H.W. Bush; Barbara Bush; Jeb Bush; Newt Gingrich; House Minority Leader John Boehner; Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senator from Kentucky; Karl Rove (bonus: If Obama wins, “Rovian tactics” will be 0 for 2 in recent national elections); oil executives everywhere; Bill O’Reilly; Rush Limbaugh and the Weird Sisters, my three fascist aunts in Sacramento.
Both Clintons (not the clincher it once was, but still a factor); Al Gore; Michael Moore; Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” (who makes the list because he’s taken pomposity out of the news and put perspective back in); radical environmentalists (in modern conservative parlance, that includes everyone who’s ever felt the faintest appreciation for a sunset, an old-growth tree or an animal outside a zoo); most journalists worthy of admiration (This doesn’t mean most journalists are liberal. It means most who write like they understand the Constitution, the value of diplomacy and what America should stand for favor Obama.); my father-in-law, who in his eighth decade changed his registration from Republican to Democrat; George Soros and me.
See? It’s simple: Figure out whom a vote is most likely to offend, then cast your ballot in the way that offends those who most deserve it.
This system is almost infallible in national elections, and does pretty well in state contests. (Try it, retrospectively, with Gov. Jim Gibbons and Dem opponent Dina Titus.)
There’s some slop in local results because there’s more personal contact with candidates, and some choices aren’t clear. I generally respect the endorsements of law enforcement agencies, for instance, because I figure they know more than I do—but they’ll back Washoe DA Dick Gammick until and unless he’s caught with a load of cheerleaders tied up in the trunk of his car, and I think Gammick’s rigid views in some areas are counterproductive.
At its worst, though, it’s better than eeny-meeny-miney-mo.