The Superficiality and Shallowness of Democratic Party Voters

[Picaro]

Fun Fact: Whenever they've run a candidate that isn't under 50, male, and photogenic since at least JFK, they lose the White House. That is the major reason Hillary lost.

 

[Picaro]

I don't keep up with nationally known Democrats, so who would the hacks be that best represent the under 50, male, and photogenic types they overwhelmingly favor over old dykes in Maoist pantsuits that they can run in 2020?

 

[OKTexas]

Fun Fact: Whenever they've run a candidate that isn't under 50, male, and photogenic since at least JFK, they lose the White House. That is the major reason Hillary lost.

Me thinks you're forgetting about LBJ.


.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Fun Fact: Whenever they've run a candidate that isn't under 50, male, and photogenic since at least JFK, they lose the White House. That is the major reason Hillary lost.

Me thinks you're forgetting about LBJ.


.

Maybe he was counting him as being a legacy and riding on the JFK sympathy vote and as such an exception to the rule?

 

[OKTexas]

Fun Fact: Whenever they've run a candidate that isn't under 50, male, and photogenic since at least JFK, they lose the White House. That is the major reason Hillary lost.

Me thinks you're forgetting about LBJ.


.

Maybe he was counting him as being a legacy and riding on the JFK sympathy vote and as such an exception to the rule?

Don't excuse his ignorance, it just shows how little thought he put in his ridiculous OP.


.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is a really dumb thread.

You republicans want to let the country turn into a third world shit hole and you wish to point fingers at us democrats for shallowness? You fucking dinofucking idiots.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Fun Fact: Whenever they've run a candidate that isn't under 50, male, and photogenic since at least JFK, they lose the White House. That is the major reason Hillary lost.

Me thinks you're forgetting about LBJ.


.

Maybe he was counting him as being a legacy and riding on the JFK sympathy vote and as such an exception to the rule?

Don't excuse his ignorance, it just shows how little thought he put in his ridiculous OP.


.

Actually, he forgot about Carter, too.

 

[OKTexas]

Fun Fact: Whenever they've run a candidate that isn't under 50, male, and photogenic since at least JFK, they lose the White House. That is the major reason Hillary lost.

Me thinks you're forgetting about LBJ.


.

Maybe he was counting him as being a legacy and riding on the JFK sympathy vote and as such an exception to the rule?

Don't excuse his ignorance, it just shows how little thought he put in his ridiculous OP.


.

Actually, he forgot about Carter, too.

Carter is easy to forget. LBJ and his massive spending, not so much.


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fun Fact: Whenever they've run a candidate that isn't under 50, male, and photogenic since at least JFK, they lose the White House. That is the major reason Hillary lost.

So your argument is that Republicans only win when they run more charismatic candidates? And that makes WHO shallow?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I explained this to you people last December:

Would Any Moderates like to Discuss How the Democrats Can Return to Being a National Party Again?

Post 16.

It's not a Demcrat thing. It works for both parties.

 

[Vastator]

This is a really dumb thread.

You republicans want to let the country turn into a third world shit hole and you wish to point fingers at us democrats for shallowness? You fucking dinofucking idiots.

Nice try... But it's you dems who want unfettered importation of the 3rd world into our country; not us...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fun Fact: Whenever they've run a candidate that isn't under 50, male, and photogenic since at least JFK, they lose the White House. That is the major reason Hillary lost.

Me thinks you're forgetting about LBJ.


.

Maybe he was counting him as being a legacy and riding on the JFK sympathy vote and as such an exception to the rule?

LBJ won because America will never elect a president as Rightwing as Barry Goldwater.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is a really dumb thread.

You republicans want to let the country turn into a third world shit hole and you wish to point fingers at us democrats for shallowness? You fucking dinofucking idiots.

Nice try... But it's you dems who want unfettered importation of the 3rd world into our country; not us...

Name 10 Democrats in office who want no controls over immigration,

and prove they support that position with evidence.

 

[Picaro]

Fun Fact: Whenever they've run a candidate that isn't under 50, male, and photogenic since at least JFK, they lose the White House. That is the major reason Hillary lost.

Me thinks you're forgetting about LBJ.


.

LBJ was VP when JFK was killed, more of an inherited office than a real win at the polls, and because incumbents are hard to beat. they were voting for JFK again, even though LBJ was the reason for the Voting Rights and Civil Rights getting passed, the northeastern Establishment and the media it controls peddled the myth JFK did it; they couldn't admit it took several Texans and a couple of southerners to get it through while they did nothing.

 

[Picaro]

Fun Fact: Whenever they've run a candidate that isn't under 50, male, and photogenic since at least JFK, they lose the White House. That is the major reason Hillary lost.

Me thinks you're forgetting about LBJ.


.

Maybe he was counting him as being a legacy and riding on the JFK sympathy vote and as such an exception to the rule?

Don't excuse his ignorance, it just shows how little thought he put in his ridiculous OP.


.

Actually, he forgot about Carter, too.

Women loved Carter's teeth, and he and Bill Clinton are of a type. Carter was photogenic and looked young for his age. I know several women who voted for him because of his smile.

And, LBJ was far better looking than Hillary, too.

 

[Picaro]

I explained this to you people last December:

Would Any Moderates like to Discuss How the Democrats Can Return to Being a National Party Again?

Post 16.

It's not a Demcrat thing. It works for both parties.

Republicans have run the ugliest candidates this entire century.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I explained this to you people last December:

Would Any Moderates like to Discuss How the Democrats Can Return to Being a National Party Again?

Post 16.

It's not a Demcrat thing. It works for both parties.

Republicans have run the ugliest candidates this entire century.

So Bush, McCain, Romney, and Trump are all uglier than Hillary Clinton?

 

[Picaro]

Fun Fact: Whenever they've run a candidate that isn't under 50, male, and photogenic since at least JFK, they lose the White House. That is the major reason Hillary lost.

Me thinks you're forgetting about LBJ.


.

Maybe he was counting him as being a legacy and riding on the JFK sympathy vote and as such an exception to the rule?

Don't excuse his ignorance, it just shows how little thought he put in his ridiculous OP.


.

Actually, he forgot about Carter, too.

Carter is easy to forget. LBJ and his massive spending, not so much.


.

LBJ's spending was less than Reagan's and Bush II's. Only Bush I actually reduced spending. That cost him a second term, which is why nobody will do that again on either side of the aisle.

 

[Picaro]

I explained this to you people last December:

Would Any Moderates like to Discuss How the Democrats Can Return to Being a National Party Again?

Post 16.

It's not a Demcrat thing. It works for both parties.

Republicans have run the ugliest candidates this entire century.

So Bush, McCain, Romney, and Trump are all uglier than Hillary Clinton?

Democrats didn't vote for them, so they're irrelevant to the Democrats' voter turnout. And, I think Gore actually did beat Bush, he was just too stupid to outmaneuver even that dumbass in Florida, so it's just as well he lost; he's a corrupt toad and would have been a worse President to boot. NK could have nuked the entire Pacific and Red China could have invaded SE Asia and the Philippines and he would have just solicited bribes for his cronies and stood by and watched, and given the ME to Iran on a platter.

 

[Vastator]

This is a really dumb thread.

You republicans want to let the country turn into a third world shit hole and you wish to point fingers at us democrats for shallowness? You fucking dinofucking idiots.

Nice try... But it's you dems who want unfettered importation of the 3rd world into our country; not us...

Name 10 Democrats in office who want no controls over immigration,

and prove they support that position with evidence.

No controls... Hardly... and that's quite the point isn't it...? They'd love full control so that they can import en masse, 3rd world trash by the hundreds of thousands; in order to bolster the number of democrat voters.