>>>>Maybe it has more to do with how America works and not American politics works. America is such a big country in terms of population, geography, ethnic and racial groups, economic backgrounds, etc. etc. The one who is "the best candidate" for one group is "the worst" for another. So the "best candidate" is a relative term. I though Mitt Romney was very good in so many ways but the left didn't like him. So there will never be "the best candidate."
>>>
>>>American political system is the best one money can buy. And it does.
>>
>>Maybe. But Trump, so far in the Primaries, proved that money does not buy winning.
>>I am currently watching a French series Marseille about politics in France/Marseille. And money is very prominent there as well (very interesting series btw, great opportunity for me to test my beginner's knowledge of french).
>>Maybe in Serbia things are very different and elections are based purely on good intentions, pursuit of well-being for all, devoid of money and corruption.
>
>It is as in the old joke from radio Yerevan "in capitalism, people are exploited by other people - here it is quite the opposite". The opposite it is, in the sense that there's more money in politics than in the economy, so the ruling parties more or less have the tycoons in their pockets. Then the tycoons blackmail their employees into voting for their political sponsors, and the gov't is the largest employer anyway, so many "political activists" get a no-work or no-show jobs etc.
>
>But this tossing the ball into my yard is pointless. Did I ever say that the politics in Serbia is in any way better? It's just that the US advertises its system as the best, and, well, you know my attitude toward advertising.

I wanted to add something to our conversation. I really don't like about the election system in the USA are the primaries and the two-party system. Now we ended up with two lousy choices: Clinton and Trump. I think I will go finishing on election day.