We are already getting a lot of speculation about who the next Republican and Democratie Presidential candidates could be in 2016. I think one of the parties should nominate a sure winner based on the profile of that candidate. That candidate would be a gay, black female. Just think about it. This candidate would be assured over 90% of the black vote and over 90% of the gay vote. The female vote would not be 90%, but would be a strong majority. The advantage would extend way beyond these captive voter blocks. If anyone criticized or disagreed with this candidate in anyway, they risk being called a racist, sexist, and a homophobe. Sounds like a sure winner to me.
This candidate should also be an atheist, as this would insure the vote of everyone that thinks total separation of church and state is desirable. Anyone that criticizes the candidate could be called a right-wing Bible thumping nut. A Muslim would be better than an atheist because that would guarantee 90% of the Muslim vote, and anyone criticizing the Muslim candidate could be perceived as a being against freedom of religion. The problem is finding an openly gay Muslim woman that was still alive, so that probably wouldn’t work.
Think of all the people that will vote for her so they can say they voted for the first woman president or the first gay president. It’s too late for the first black president, but still a factor. When President Obama was elected, I heard a lot of people say, “Isn’t it nice to have a black president?”
The next thing is experience. The candidate can’t have any. I had a college professor once told me that a truly qualified candidate could never be elected president, because their record would offend too many special interest groups. He may have had a valid point. The candidate cannot have a successful record in the private sector. An undistinguished career in the public sector is best. If the candidate is an elected official, they need to be fairly nondescript. The majority of votes cast should be simply “Present” so no one is offended.
Personal wealth is good, but it must be inherited or earned in some way other than being successful in the private sector. Being a show business celebrity, star sports athlete, or an author are okay. If an author, the writings cannot spell out specific political agendas, as this could alienate too many people. Marrying wealth is also okay, but in this case the candidate should be from a state where same-sex marriages are legal. The spouse’s wealth must meet the previously mentioned criteria.
Academic achievement is good, but if it is marginal or if the candidate received special consideration due to affirmative action, the records must be sealed. Political science and law degrees are always good for politicians.
Personal history is not too important, as long as there are no sex scandals. Most drug history, financial indiscretions, fraud, and even some felonies can be handled in most cases. The crime or indiscretion is not a problem, but the candidate can’t get caught in a cover-up.
The candidate does not have to have any real talent, except she must be photogenic, she must have a good speaking voice, and she must be able give a good speech. She does not have to know what she is saying or memorize. She just needs to be able to read the teleprompter and deliver the speech convincingly. There are plenty of speechwriters that can write a speech to appeal to any audience and still keep it generic enough so people can hear what they want to hear.
Let’s recap. We have a gay, black female with money, but no achievements, record, history, or talent in business or politics. She is photogenic and can deliver a good speech. Sounds like a sure winner to me.
This blog was fun, but it is just a tongue-in-cheek spoof, or was it?