When a candidate whom you didn't vote for wins, do you:

A. Hope for their failure - even if you'd be affected by it as well - so that they won't be reelected.
B. Hope that their time in office doesn't reek too much havoc.
C. Hope that their tenure is a successful one that, in some way, still benefits you.

A and B usually go together. If it's a general election situation, hoping for their failure in terms of their implementation of policies directly correlates with hoping they don't wreak too much havoc. The people I don't vote for don't bring much benefit to me and any they do comes at some much higher prices. Failing in their agendas is, IMO, the best thing for the country. Success would mean wreaking havoc on the country (and then they, the media, and the sheeple who support them would just blame somebody else for it...).

So it's a dynamic fusion of A and B.

Now ideally, I'd like them to have a conversion experience. But not holding my breath for that.

Mainly B

CeCe wrote:

Mainly B

B.

C, usually. Currently, A.

A&B

Bluesmama wrote:

C, usually. Currently, A.

Gee, what politician could possibly prompt a shift like that?

He can't be "re-elected".

CeCe wrote:

He can't be "re-elected".

True. But I also had my state governor in mind.

LOL. People who hope for the failure of another candidate when it will directly affect you (usually in a negative aspect) are retarded. It's should never be that damn serious.

Nystyle709 wrote:

LOL. People who hope for the failure of another candidate when it will directly affect you (usually in a negative aspect) are retarded. It's should never be that damn serious.

People who want government to fail because they hate some damn politician are absurd. I hate the governor. I knew his political ads were lies. They elected him anyway & now I just have to hope he doesn't damage the state too much in the next 4 years & the voters will be smart enough to vote his ass out in 2016.