Poll of the Day > Goddamn it, NJ

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm so sick of those pro-Phil Murphy, anti-Phil Murphy, and anti-Jack Chitauri (or whatever) ads. The only thing I haven't seen a pro-Jack ad, just that same shitty ad attacking him.

Granted, I should feel sorry for New Jerseysians since I just have to see and hear Phil Murphy during election seasons, they've got to hear him all the time... and then I remember I'm stuck with the lamentable Ned Lamont, who is likely 3.5 times worse (although his voice is less annoying)

(The NYC mayoral race ads also play all the time, but they're less awful.)

---

I have Ron DeSantis.

Person106 posted...

I have Ron DeSantis.

At this point, I think I'd be willing to trade my governor for just about anybody except Gavin Nuisance.

---

Ron is either worse than Donald Trump or the best governor in the nation.

Wouldn't it be cool if "Did not vote" counted as its own party and if "Did not vote" has the majority then you get to dissolve the position

---

Lokarin posted...

Wouldn't it be cool if "Did not vote" counted as its own party and if "Did not vote" has the majority then you get to dissolve the position

As much as I dislike the candidates for CT and NJ's governorship (and CT had a debate question neither candidate could answer... "How many bathrooms are in your house?"), I'm pretty sure states still need a governor. Or idk, maybe the legislature would be enough.

---

Zeus posted...

As much as I dislike the candidates for CT and NJ's governorship (and CT had a debate question neither candidate could answer... "How many bathrooms are in your house?"), I'm pretty sure states still need a governor. Or idk, maybe the legislature would be enough.

Counter-argument (me just being silly here): If the position of governor was dissolved due to a null election... and things did go bad, that'd be pretty good incentive to get people to vote next time

---

Lokarin posted...

Counter-argument (me just being silly here): If the position of governor was dissolved due to a null election... and things did go bad, that'd be pretty good incentive to get people to vote next time

The problem with not-voting is often less a reflection of voter apathy towards the position and more towards the candidates. And, to a certain extent, you're never going to find candidates that most people even within a party like because the system is too big.

Most people recognize the importance of the office, but they also recognize how worthless the candidate are. In CT's case, it came down to two completely unqualified multi-millionaires -- one of whom had run for (and lost) multiple offices, and the other who hadn't voted in a lot of previous elections -- where both held extreme, impractical stances.

---