Why Does Massachusetts Produce So Many Unelectable National Candidates?
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
you can't call romney unelectable when it's honestly still a very close election. that's just a pretty stupid assumption right off the bat.
you are also dealing with a very limited sample size. kerry was very competitive with bush, but ultimately we were dealing with 3 years after one of the worst national disasters in history and people weren't willing to roll the dice during the "War on terror". reagan left with good approval ratings and that probably helped bush to some extent.
jfk was from massachusetts and people are still in love with him to this day.
Lastly, unelectable implies it would be impossible to be elected. Losing an election doesn't automatically imply someone is "unelectable." It just means in that certain scenario, they couldn't close the deal.
So basically I think your question starts off with a false premise.
you are also dealing with a very limited sample size. kerry was very competitive with bush, but ultimately we were dealing with 3 years after one of the worst national disasters in history and people weren't willing to roll the dice during the "War on terror". reagan left with good approval ratings and that probably helped bush to some extent.
jfk was from massachusetts and people are still in love with him to this day.
Lastly, unelectable implies it would be impossible to be elected. Losing an election doesn't automatically imply someone is "unelectable." It just means in that certain scenario, they couldn't close the deal.
So basically I think your question starts off with a false premise.
super why did you groan me I thought I raised pretty legitimate points.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
That's why.
