Luis wrote above:
[[ Dismissing a candidate for no other reason than their last name is about as rational as electing one because of their gender of skin color. ]]
Elections -- particularly presidential ones -- are NOT about "rational" thinking.
They're not so much about "logic", either.
Or even common sense, for that matter.
If that were the case, obama would never have been elected.
But he was elected, and then re-elected.
As there's a very good chance over-the-Hillary will be elected next year.
And that former San Antonio mayor Castro after her.
Contrary to your opinion, I believe that in a nation that is becoming more and more governed by those who -do- cater to identity politics, it's actually quite logical and rational to base one's vote on the candidate's "skin color", or even gender.
After eight years of obama, I see no reason to vote for a black again, ever. Not even a black Republican.
You can call me "racis'" if you wish (to impress yourself and others on this forum), but that accusation makes no difference to me.
(Aside: I have voted for blacks for political office before. I probably will not do so again.)
In a "non-diverse" population, "identity" to a particular race or ethnicity didn't mean so much.
In an environment where "diversity" is now promoted and certain "non-diverse" folks are discriminated against, it's time to start "identifyin'" with others with whom one has a common culture or ethnicity. It makes no sense not to do so, when increasingly large numbers of "the diverse" do.
Sure, it would be nice if we could toss personal identity politics on the junk pile, and be guided by rationalism and idealism.
But reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.
Identity politics is now a political reality here in America, whether we like it or not.
Better get used to that.
But beyond that, we had better learn to use that reality to our own advantage...
