I don’t necessarily disagree with your overall point, but it is kind of insane that we think 4 months is way too late to change candidates, when other countries do their whole election cycle in a month.
True, other countries are shorter. But in America, it’s 2 YEARS of political garbage. We need proper Federal election laws and one of those limits the time we have to be subjected to the campaigns. It should be less than 6 months from start to finish with mandatory debates so Voters can tune in and be easily informed. Right now it’s just chaos and disinformation. And the US press has abandoned journalism. We now have Fox News 1. Fox 2 (NYT), Fox 3 (WSJ), etc. The UK transferred power in 24 hours. 4 months is getting very late in the game for the US, where everything takes longer than a trip to Pluto. This is not the year to piss around, it may be the last time anyone votes ever.
As Jon Stewart and many others have already pointed out -Two of our closest allies just recently managed to announce and host national elections in a matter of weeks. It’s nothing short of absurd that we allegedly can’t even field a new candidate for a single party in the course of four months.
I wish our system was theirs.
But historically, in the US, the candidate with the biggest war chest wins the election.
Biden has considerably more than Trump. Inertia alone is almost certain to guarantee that Trump loses with Biden on the ticket. That being said, one of the only times this wasn’t true meant Trump became president.
So you’re saying that Hillary Clinton losing to Trump was because she didn’t have as large of a war chest?
Or was that not part of history?
