What possible explanation is there for this? You know what “this” refers to, right? Too many areas to parse over, dissect, spin and sift through, panning for a nugget of truth. Truth. Based on fact. Fact. Evidence. Proof. Cannot be refuted. And the truth is, November 5th lacked  logical reasoning.

Allow me to enter into evidence:

The Party in power lost. The challenging Party won. Fact. But why? Okay, let’s liken the election to debating what competing credit card company offers the best perks. You’ve seen the advertising format: Card A has this, this, this, that, that that. Card B has this, this, but not that, or that. The consumer would wisely choose Card A. Comparative shopping. The informed consumer. Verifying the surface assertions of Card A. It makes perfect sense.

Like my analogy so far? I prefer not to use the names of the guilty.

Voters had a few choices, but the advertising component was dominated by just two offerings. Not that all the information on either major offering was solely based on paid promotions. News organizations gave each “Card” reportage. Other Cards were barely mentioned. Between the two media modes, there was a lot of surface assertions for the potential consumer to digest. But choosing what to consume based primarily on what that surface shows is clearly not being well informed.

Allow me to further enter into evidence:

Below the surface of Card A was a lackluster, rather obtuse offering of perks. Healthcare, education, climate, immigration, among other issues were, at best, voiced with bland bromides seeking to assure a safe and secure road ahead. One issue, that being Card A’s current foreign policy concerning unwavering support toward a well-armed (even a member of the Nuclear Club) country’s attacks on another unarmed neighbor. Ending that support would have been a huge “perk” for selling its otherwise style over substance political posturing.

However, Card B was even more style over substance. While Card A offered a mannered and very carefully scripted style, Card B was akin to improvisation theater of the absurd. Blather and bombastic performance, as has been its trademark for over a decade now. But below that surface veneer? Card B was not so much about what it stood for as, what a closer examination easily could reveal, what it stood against.

Allow me to enter into evidence:

Card B has made clear it does not support the following: family medical paid leave; universal healthcare; pre-Kindergarten childcare; student loan debt relief; extended childcare tax credit and very much does not support tax increases on corporations or the uber wealthy. In fact, Card B want to eliminate the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency. Oh, there’s even more repugnant “perks” that goes with Card B, but why bother? Card B was picked emphatically over Card A.

Both Card A and Card B were not offering much of anything beyond rhetoric and recklessness. I supported Card C, full of positive perks! But as I alluded to earlier, without major advertising and serious–if any–coverage by the mass media, and certainly without enough critical-thinking, informed, potential consumers. For supporters of Card C, the choice was very simple and logical. But we do not have an electorate that gets too involved in such reasoning when making choices. Card C is still available. But for those who preferred Card B and all that it stands against, I can only hope by the next major Card Offerings they will have wished for more in return. That Card B is VERY expensive. Its horrible offerings apply to anyone in any part of the country.

The choice of Card B, for some who chose any other Card, has led to what is called doom spending. Why not? Max out any and all credit cards. Go wild. Why not? Card A is out of business for the time-being, I’d say. How could it not attract more consumers than its primary competitor who was exclusively offering negativity and nullification? How?! Oh, that’s right. We apparently do not have an adult population that demands better products and services. We seem to gravitate toward junk.

Doom spending? Hey, doom, gloom or wall-to-wall sunshine and satisfaction, we are certainly a nation of consumers. That is always in play.

Caveat emptor.