Press "Enter" to skip to content

Who’s worse than Hillary and The Donald?

I was thinking the other day that if The Hillary and The Donald* actually end up as the D and R nominees, it’ll be the first election in U.S. history where half the v*ote is an “anybody but Hillary” protest and the other half an “anybody but Donald” backlash.

Can you think of a more repulsive matchup ever? Not that any aren’t repulsive. But this one’s worse than Nixon v. Humphrey** for complete lack of … well, anything good.

This guy’s got it right. I’ve always believed that if you have to have elections, cutting up a phone book and drawing candidate names at random makes much more sense than the way we (okay, “we”) do it now.

Wanting to hold office ought to be an automatic disqualifier. And never has an American election demonstrated that more clearly than The Slime v The Mouth, 2016.

Never Yet Melted got it right on the subject twice this week.



* Capital T as in “The Black Plague” or “The End of the World as We Know It.”

** Note: That was another election in which, with the nation and the world in chaos and on the verge of shattering change, both parties managed to throw up (and I use the term advisedly) the worst sort of creepy mediocrities.


  1. Jim B.
    Jim B. March 12, 2016 1:57 pm


    Just to name a few.

    If anybody feels they must v*te, then the proper way is to put your finger on the button, pinch your nose and turn away as you push the button because you can’t watch yourself do it.

    That’s the proper attitude.

    Oh, and wash your hands afterward.

  2. Pat
    Pat March 12, 2016 2:03 pm

    If it comes down to H vs D, I’m thinkng – and hoping – it will be the lowest voter turnout in history. That would finally put the lie to “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain.”

  3. Claire
    Claire March 12, 2016 2:03 pm

    Um … I meant can anybody think of a more unappealing presidential candidate matchup that has actually happened. Sure Bloomberg v Charles Manson or Feinstein v Jack the Ripper (but I repeat myself; not to mention that Jack’s citizenship status is even more in doubt than Ted Cruz’s) would be even less appealing than Hillary v The Donald. But I mean … one the parties actually perpetrated. In the real world.

  4. Bear
    Bear March 12, 2016 4:09 pm

    I thought Aaron and Neil had conceived the only possible way (in the novel Hope) that a libertarian could ever be elected president. Now I’m wondering if the Rs and Ds haven’t hit upon another way.

  5. LarryA
    LarryA March 12, 2016 4:16 pm

    Well, actually 1968 was Nixon – Humphrey – George Wallace, so there’s that. But back then we didn’t know Nixon as well as we did later. I’d vote for Obama – McCain as worst choice so far.

    But yeah.

    The first one I remember was Kennedy – Nixon, which was the first one on TV. Then there was Johnson – Goldwater right after Kennedy’s assassination. Back then you could vote for the best candidate.

    Then it was more like voting against the worst candidate, like Clinton – Dole – Perot or Bush – Gore – Nader.

    With Clinton – Trump it’ll be voting for the one that scares me least, and it may take a coin toss.

    Whichever one takes office, I’m going to be real glad I don’t work for the POTUS protection detail.

  6. pigpen51
    pigpen51 March 12, 2016 6:24 pm

    It is almost like we have to wait for the vp’s to see who will be left after the pres. is whacked by the elites, and vote based on them.

  7. Jim B.
    Jim B. March 12, 2016 9:17 pm

    Whacked? Oh, I hope not. For one thing, I don’t want any of them to wind up being a martyr for whatever causes they espouse. None of them deserve anymore than a mere footnote, if that.

    No, let them fade into obscurity and their ashes blown away by the wind.

  8. Bill St. Clair
    Bill St. Clair March 13, 2016 4:59 am

    Yep. THEY’re going to have a tough time choosing the lesser of two evils this time. If you must vote,

  9. MamaLiberty
    MamaLiberty March 13, 2016 5:42 am

    Hard for me to believe that so many people are willing to fight tooth and nail to have their favorite politician given the power to control their lives, rob and kill them pretty much at will. History proves that they do, but it is still incomprehensible. Even the “Libertarians” can’t find a non-statist candidate.

  10. Joel
    Joel March 13, 2016 9:21 am

    I confess I was hoping for an indictment or an out-of-control Volkswagen or something to remove Hill from the race so it could be Trump v. Sanders. Because both are entertaining, and because congress would treat either one of them like lame ducks before they were even inaugurated.

    But we’ve already seen there are plenty of Ds willing to pretend Hillary is the second coming, and enough Rs happy to quietly go along with whatever she does as long as it increases their power and percs.

    Hence, while both are completely repulsive, I suspect Hillary will turn out more dangerous than Donald.

  11. Desertrat
    Desertrat March 13, 2016 8:20 pm

    Sanders’ ideas would lead us to Venezuela. Freebies ain’t free.

    But for the Trumpster, all the rest are NeoCon warhawks.

    I saw Midway, Wake and Corregidor in 1949. Inchon, Yong Dong Po and Seoul in 1954/1955. I don’t think we need some NeoCon working diligently to drone-bomb more wedding parties and to send more refugees to Europe or to the U.S.

    Doesn’t mean I want Trump, but for all that it spoils the cornbread, he’s a lesser among the weevils.

  12. Pat
    Pat March 14, 2016 6:31 am

    “Doesn’t mean I want Trump, but for all that it spoils the cornbread, he’s a lesser among the weevils.”

    How do you know? None of the candidates has a handle on the issues. Neither knows what it takes to run a country.

    The NON-progressive direction of leadership for the past two hundred-plus years has been like a snowball rolling downhill (since Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion). It may have hit a small bump during the Industrial Revolution and waited out the pressure, but managed to slide free to continue on downward. Each decade has politically built on the previous decade, no potential leader has stepped forward to say, “This is the wrong direction; let’s start over and re-think what we’re supposed to do BEFORE we act. Let’s learn from history.” Even Calvin Coolidge, Barry Goldwater, or Ron Paul were still politicians *first*, in there pitching for control of direction while they spoke about individualism and freedom. Neither they nor anyone else in DC understands “the market for liberty.”

    To answer Claire’s question (which I apparently misunderstood at first): No, I don’t think there has been a more repulsive couple to run for the presidency; both are egomaniacs in the worst sense. One is incompetent and a liar (and an incompetent liar to boot), the other is an a**hole with a mouth. Both are typical of the era – they think because they want, they have a right to it; because they have an opinion, it gives validity to their action.

  13. capn
    capn March 14, 2016 7:55 am

    It seems that we have found the Acme of hypocrisy in the field of Criminal Mischief for Fun and Profit. (politics)

    I couldn’t think of another match-up that stinks (stunk?) as bad as this one does.

    However I hold out hope that we humans will find an even more obnoxious combination at some point in the future Unless the common sense of humanity awakens and ends central governments at last. If only to shock awake the hypnotized millions. (minions?)

    A Pox on both their houses. h/t Wm Shakespeare (I think…)

    Personally I shall “Abstain from Beans.” Thanks Kent.

  14. Graystone
    Graystone March 15, 2016 8:39 am

    Guess I’m the exception here. During my considerable time on this Earth – three quarters of a century now, and my first vote for Goldwater in ’64, all I’ve had to contend with are establishment politicians. For the first time in my memory, we now have a candidate that has both sides of the isle literally scared to death and uniting against him. Not to mention virtually all media looking to dig up as much dirt as possible. Let’s give credit where credit is due. Perhaps Trump is not all things to all people, but he is the only candidate that is giving the finger – sometimes literally, to establishment politicians and the media. This may be the first time ever that we have a chance to shake up the establishment and get rid of their iron-clad pensions and gold-plated health care plans. It would seem that this is an opportunity for all freedom lovers to unite behind a candidate that represents real “change.” Not that things will change that much if Trump gets elected, but it will no longer be “business-as- usual for politicians and the media. (Can that be a bad thing?) Not to worry, though, I believe the fix is already in, and we’ll end up with Hillary as our next president, and the “freedom lovers” will have even more to whine about.

  15. Laird
    Laird March 15, 2016 9:36 am

    I’m going to propose a possible upside to a Trump presidency which I haven’t seen addressed anywhere. The last Republican president we had who was anything like Trump (arrogant, strong-willed, even a little paranoid) was Nixon. There was both good* and bad** in his administration, but one remarkable thing to come out of that era was Congress reasserting some of its Constitutional powers against the “imperial presidency”. This took several forms, including passing (over Nixon’s veto) the War Powers Act (which was intended to, and for a long time actually did, significantly limit the president’s power to unilaterally conduct foreign military adventures) and imposing the first meaningful restrictions on our intelligence agencies, notably the CIA (which at the time was the primary agency for covertly causing trouble abroad).

    Today we have another “imperial president”, whom it pleases to rule by wielding his “pen and phone”. Many of Obama’s Executive Orders are blatantly unconstitutional, and his assertion that he can circumvent the Senate’s power to “advise and consent” on treaties would be risible were it not for the fact that the Senate has acceded to it. The Republicans controlling Congress dare not seriously challenge anything Obama has done because they are terrified of being called “racist”, and of course the Democrats are ecstatic over his actions. But with a Republican in the White House, and especially one which is disliked and distrusted by the Republican Party elite, there is no risk of such a charge. We could find ourselves in a situation where Congress actually pushes back against the presidency, reclaims some of its rightful powers, and essentially inoculates the republic against the excesses of another Obama for a few more decades. Such a restoration of the Constitutional order is much to be desired.

    Of course, that won’t do anything about restoring the proper role of the states in the federalist political structure, but one problem at a time.

    * Opening relations with China, ending the Vietnam war.
    ** Abolishing the gold standard, implementing wage and price controls

  16. Emily Summer
    Emily Summer March 15, 2016 2:51 pm

    Well, Cruz fans, he has just said that the Americans that are against GMOs or Monsanto are all anti science zealots. Mr. Trump is looking better all the time.

  17. Kent McManigal
    Kent McManigal March 16, 2016 8:51 am

    I don’t want or “need” a president nor to be “represented”. I won’t v*te.

    However, for the first time in ages, I actually am kinda keeping the corner of my eye on some events this time around. I find Trump’s campaign interesting, and am enjoying reading all the hysteria surrounding it. All due to this: link

    It’s funny how differently I see him and the whole Periodic Clown Riot than I usually see these sorts of things. #DillClump2016 – Making “what difference does it make” great again!

  18. jc2k
    jc2k March 16, 2016 9:05 pm

    The GOP establishment is demonstrating they’re more dedicated to the establishment than they are to the GOP –

    They would rather see Clinton win (at least she’s part of the establishment) than see Trump or Cruz take over the party. They’re already floating the idea of running an establishment Republican as an independent if Trump or Cruz gets the nomination.
    That sort of thing, and the wider understanding of the Dem “super-delegates” is making it clear to more people than ever how thoroughly corrupt the system is.

  19. E Garrett Perry
    E Garrett Perry March 18, 2016 6:00 am

    Worse election slates than Commisar Clinton vs The Manhattan Marmot?

    I dunno…as William Grigg puts it, this is rather like a vote between Spartecist and Communist.

Leave a Reply