That's what the Chinese tell us.
So here's the scenario.
You have $250,000 to donate to one of these three candidates for whatever office:
1. An incumbent Democrat who's not exactly a shoe-in but has more of a chance than anyone else. The only problem is that this person is quite possibly incompetent and MAY screw things up once he/she is back in office. There were those times when (insert problems)
2. A moderate and even competent Republican, who usually resists the urge to hype the Taliban-wing's more regressive policies. But, when the chips are down can usually be counted on to toe the main party line. (After all, this person is a Republican.) This person could generate the support to be electable. But you have no idea well he or she will do once in office.
3. A progressive Independent, who could a strong contender. And is definitely electable ONLY if he/she has a influx of campaign funds. The only problem is this person is politically inexperienced and has no support of a national party. Despite this, he/she is honest and will always try to do the right thing.
Who would you pick?
Now my answer: I'll say #3. This is because I have the choice and not a dilemma. I would never under any circumstances support a Republican. They're like roaches. Once you know that you have one in your house, you know you have all of his friends and family too.
Any Democrat is always better than a Republican. But If I have my doubts about this guy, I have to be wary.
I truly think we need a viable third party in this country, who's popular support must serve as a wake up call to the big two. And if I had the money, that's what I would fight to build.
Is this pie in the sky, or what?