How do you account for the fact that the American people rejected Herbert Hoover's run for a second-term as President after being the first Presidency that ever had a net loss of jobs but that they affirmed George W Bush's request for a second term after being the second Presidency to boast a net loss of jobs? And by a bigger margin than before he had this problem?
First, FDR was more charismatic than John F Kerry; second, and equally more important, the American people are more ignorant now than they were then, and they're way more proud of it.
Of the 10 states with the highest average IQ, the number which
voted for Bush in 2004: 2
Of the 10 states with the lowest average IQ, the number which voted for Bush in 2004: 10
I have wrestled with the following problem for many months and I have finally and reluctantly come to the following conclusion: he who commits himself to working strictly within the Democratic party to move it to the Left can only help move it to the Right. Where else, come Election Day, will he go? He can, and will, be taken for granted as a Democratic voter. It is only by committing to Democratic ideals, and committing to voting for that candidate who represents those ideals, whether Democrat or crazie, that one can force the Democrats to choose a different direction to travel in their quest for swing voters, Left OR Right. Voters who can be counted on (for better or for worse) are part of the problem of the Democrats moving to the Right to seek out new voters.