Replies

It's a well known fact that Kerry won the RAT primary in 2004 because the RATS believed (for the same reasons you believe about Perry) that Kerry was the "most electable" candidate. Otherwise that Howard Dean lunatic would have won the RAT primary.

For some strange reason, the RATs seem to think that middle America just LOVES wealthy liberal elitists from Massachuttes, and the GOP seems to to think that middle America just LOVES open-border compassionate conservatives from Texas.

Neither assumption is correct, those kinds of candidates actually fare poorly in swing states. Bush was far more popular that Perry and he only won nationally by 1 electoral vote. Perry barely wins Texas, Kerry and Dukasis got killed outside of Mass, and Kennedy had to steal the election to win in 1960. Obviously the election results don't match the "most electable" hype.

If you think I'm lying, I would be able to provide quotes from numerous Dems in 2004 claiming Kerry was the "most electable" choice.

Ronald Reagan was NOT seen as the "most electable" in 1980. He was portrayed as too old, goofy, and right-wing. The wisdom was that Howard Baker and George H.W. Bush would be more appealing to voters. In fact, the Dems begged the GOP to nominate Reagan because they tought he would be a weak candidate.