Replies

If you look at the three candidates at last weeks Iowa fair, Mitt looks and sounds young, and vibrant. Rudy looks middle age and sound vibrant, but Fred (in those pictures) looks very old and worn out no matter how vibrant he sounds. We live in a very visual society (whether we like it or not), and those pictures did him no help at all.

Notice that people here don't even post those pictures when praising him, it is almost always the pictures taken a few years ago.

I can't post pictures, but if someone could post the three candidates, from last week, side by side, you will see what I mean. I really hope if Fred does do the debates next month, that he hires a really good make up artist, because if he doesn't I don't think his "communication skills" will make a huge impression on undecided voters.

As much as I want to disagree with you about the pics of FDT from the fair and a potential voter's reaction, I can't. Reagan was a similar age, but really didn't look it...maybe it's the hair?

I've wondered for a long time if Abe Lincoln could be elected today. He was an incredible speaker and writer, but not at all attractive in a traditional sense. If we, as a society, are shallow enough to elect Clinton twice, I don't think we can elect FDT once, but it's way too early to know for sure.

I've noticed that too - Fred looked at his best about 10-15 years ago, but he has not aged well. He's only five years older than Mitt, but looks like he could be Mitt's father.

I don't think it helped any that he rode around the Iowa fair in a golf cart either. Makes one worry about his health.

Regardless, my vote will be to whoever is the Republican nominee. Anybody But Hillary:-(