That is because I never said it. Buchanan actually won a state wide primary...some thing Gilchrist is incappable of doing. Why you chose Gilchrist as a counter-argument is beyond me. Gilchrist was running for 1 of over 50 CA House seats, and not a statewide seat. (I'm suprised CA hasn't elected an illegal to the Congress - the Constitution seems to mean little in CA.) My question to you was "Have you ever thought to ask yourself why the leaders of the anti-immigration movement can't get elected to statewide office much less be thought of as a national leader?" You have failed to answer my question.
So you can conclude from that datum either a) that Bush and Kerry are the two most popular politicians in America, or b) that the two parties really do not serve the interests of the people. Assuming the latter (which I think would be the conclusion of most rational people)
You assume too much. Including that your views are rational. Record turnout is not an indicator of voter dissatisfaction by rational people.
What "anti-immigration movement" are you referring to here? Certainly nothing I was talking about.
[So you can conclude from that datum either a) that Bush and Kerry are the two most popular politicians in America, or b) that the two parties really do not serve the interests of the people. Assuming the latter (which I think would be the conclusion of most rational people)]
You assume too much. Including that your views are rational.
So you're going with a)? You really think that Bush and Kerry are the two most popular politicians in the country?
Wow.