&gt; Did i mention party?<p>Blaming the standing president for systematic problems is a fairly reliable sign that someone is a member of the opposite party (or an independent that always votes one way, natch). Even if that somehow happens to not be the case for you, there&#x27;s the little problem that we have a FPTP voting system which effectively means that elections always boil down to two options (assuming that you&#x27;re a rational actor who understands vote splitting). Claiming that voting for one option shows &quot;bad judgement&quot; implies that the alternative (remember, FPTP =&gt; only one rational alternative) is better, so it really is a partisan statement.<p>Sanity check: would a statement of the form &quot;Obama is bad because x,y,z&quot;  be necessarily partisan by this logic? No.<p>&gt; Finance reform will solve nothing. You can&#x27;t stop a billionaire from investing in himself.<p>Sure you can, but for now that&#x27;s a largely speculative failure mode. First let&#x27;s solve the problem that our system effectively imposes a mandatory bribe quota on the candidates and see if that doesn&#x27;t improve matters. If the problem you propose becomes an issue afterwards <i>then</i> we can fight over the whole &quot;money is speech&quot; argument.