I thoroughly dislike most political jokes. The majority operate the way a sledge hammer works on a flea. If you are not Gallagher I advise against this tactic.
Thinking back I count a few such jokes that were witty or clever. One involved Reagan, Kissinger, a priest and a hippy on a plane. Another made use of Ann Richards’ campaign and the Texas town of Waco.

My favorite (maybe because I enjoy doing the voices) involves G W Bush and Canadian PM Jean Cre’tien. (Like much American humor this needs to be heard rather than seen dead on a page.)

Folks will kindly send me things they think worthily humorous. Doing so almost always lessens my regard of them for not having the Gallagher style to pull it off or for representing mean spirited nastiness as inspired funniness.

(BTW – when did the F bomb turn funny? Apparently I missed that intersection. The two word phrase implies an unwanted sexual assault. How humorous is that? I think it fails a “funny” test on all levels plus is used to meaningless numbing excess. Fuck You is not funny, but if humor requirements are dropped low enough it becomes a riot, literally. I missed where a liberal opened mind found funny in sexual aggression. Stating why such persons should not be dated is a waste of time. If you don’t already know why it’s too late now.)

Another reason I reject the majority of political jokes rests on my preference to get the joke direct from the political source itself.

Whether recognized or not political self-seriousness is amusing, especially when delivered with sweetly sincere conviction of political and moral justice. Ah but that is delicious when coming from those who tune in 99% to the winds of social approval. A person who thinks “how will this play” more often than “where does this take us” is a real-life political parody. Can’t beat that!

The cherubic glow on the face of a pandering politico mouthing the contrary of last week’s tune is beyond the skill of any mere artist to fix upon a canvas. When people (we call them public servants) need-want to be liked and loved so much it takes over the effect is somewhat like that of being asked to elect prostitutes based on who promises the greater pleasure for my voting buck. Well, I guess that might be funny were it not so true or so desperately accurate.

Ugly doesn’t play well in democratic voting, though you’ll have a search before you if you look to find a pol who’ll say “vote for me because I look good.” They may be 90% about appearances and looks but they must do so wearing the outer garment of profound substance.

“Change” is a good sweater for a politician to don over their same old skin of leopard. The outer appearance of progress in promises of things done differently falls on sorry times if the voting public glimpses nothing at all different under the banners of reform, deform, preform, or conform.

Politics is business as usual done on stages where working comedians dance for our applause. One of my more sour uncles used to say politicians were all talk and promises. He could have added (though perhaps I’m too cynical) the best of them grow quite wealthy pretending to disdain what they covet and desire near much as life itself.

Should I confess being swayed by political looks and appearances? Why not? I find Nancy Pelosi a sharply beautiful woman in a particular way. She has the type of beauty that is more than skin deep, though in all honesty I think a little more use of heavier makeup would add ketchup to the burger meal.

If only her delightful lips could stand out with more prominence and fire truck red allure. A vision of heaven isn’t it? But even paradise might be improved and made more delightful of those rosy lips would purse forward more in a posed gesture of love for all as is in the heart animating them. I’d best stop before I reveal too much of my own desires.

After a beauty like Nancy it’s difficult to account for a Trump. Trump and pretty don’t seem to make it in the same sentence. That reality is quite strong, I believe.
Were you, as I was, one of those who never in the world thought “that man” could end up where he is? But there he is; not pretty but damnably (some would say infuriatingly) resilient. Alongside the beauty of Nancy is the imponderability of Trump. Difficult to make any sense of such things isn’t it? But then politics and people are not known for sensibility.

I know people who rail against the injustice of paternalistic authority while adamantly supporting a white haired elder patriarch. Maybe such is not meant to make sense and only be seen, accepted as imponderable human nature. Though if I said so to such person they were imponderable as Trump they’d find mortal offense and likely leave me to the dust they’d feel my just deserve.

It’s happened to me before. On average it seems the liberal mind breaks and runs more readily. When done they are DONE. Conservatives I disagree with aren’t as apt to shut down and shun. As I see it that’s an interesting difference. How we handle disagreement tells a whole lot more than we might imagine. Can be a little difficult to discern because some things sound open while effectively setting limits. Like this. Diversity sounds open but it represents conformity to a strict standard. If you don’t accept it as true you are a blasphemer.

Does seeing the religion in some politics somewhat explain the difference in reactions?

Sadly, I’m not good at understanding such things. I had an acquaintance who bemoaned their inability to find a mate. I commiserated telling them to not give up. There had to be at least one blind, deaf person with no sense of smell out there for them. As I said, I’m not good about such things. Accurate readings aren’t always welcome.