The monetary requirements these days for a presidential campaign (not to mention the other offices you have to hold before you can realistically contend for the nomination) means that, sadly, the poorest of our candidates are going to be pretty well-heeled. But even with that, Obama and Romney are from different worlds, especially when you look at their early lives. (To my surprise, Clinton also had a fairly "normal" childhood, compared to a lot of our more dynastic politician types.)
The slate of candidates on the Republican side this round was . . . yeah. It's pretty obvious what happened: the more serious potentials looked at the economy (which still sucks, and will continue to suck for a while longer, a fact which will be blamed on whoever's in office for the next four years) and the influence of the Tea Party (which imposes purity tests that send independents screaming in the other direction) and thought, y'know, I'd rather wait for 2016. We were left with the third-stringers -- and with Mitt Romney, who won by default of being less scarily unstable than his opponents. But that doesn't make him a good candidate; it just makes him the last man standing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
yati
no subject
Date: 2012-09-20 05:30 am (UTC)The slate of candidates on the Republican side this round was . . . yeah. It's pretty obvious what happened: the more serious potentials looked at the economy (which still sucks, and will continue to suck for a while longer, a fact which will be blamed on whoever's in office for the next four years) and the influence of the Tea Party (which imposes purity tests that send independents screaming in the other direction) and thought, y'know, I'd rather wait for 2016. We were left with the third-stringers -- and with Mitt Romney, who won by default of being less scarily unstable than his opponents. But that doesn't make him a good candidate; it just makes him the last man standing.