>> Really, how would Romney be any worse than this guy?
>>
> In my experience, when someone says "things can't get any worse" or
> "no one could be worse than this guy" they are being way too
> optimistic.
My immediate reaction was, "Can we please not tempt fate?"
But insofar as we're engaging with electoral politics - as opposed to structural analysis, strategy formulation derivative therefrom, and / or selecting tactics in support of the resulting strategy - doesn't the proper domain of analysis lie in understanding the specific political debts and vulnerabilities that constrain the political options available to individual candidates, and then attempting to understand their likely moves once in power on that basis, and working to shift the probabilities toward our preferred outcomes? Is there any other reason - other than therapeutic value or putative entertainment (which I confess fails me; I'd rather watch cooking shows) - to discuss individual candidates? Or do people still think of them as our "leaders" in some sense - as opposed, say, to structurally compromised, recalcitrant and all-but-un-indictable "public servants," who daily reject the latter role, despite the fact that it is the only legitimate one they could ever aspire to occupy?