Posted: 4/17/2012 4:34:15 PM
It's women that decide elections. Usually, it's the best looking and emotionally connected candidate that wins, but not always.
I have a lot of females in my family, 6 Sisters. 15 Aunts. As a kid, I can remember them saying that Dewey lost because he had an ugly mustache.
In 1952 Ike was better looking than Adila Stevenson.
1960 John F Kennedy was way better looking than Tricky person.
1964 Johnson beat Goldy because of the assination, women were emotionally attached to Johnson, through Kennedy.
1968 Tricky person beat Humphrey because folks hated Viet-nam war. Women didn't know who was uglier.
In 1972 person won again because McGovern was no prize catch.
1976 Jimmy Carter won partially because he was better looking than Ford. but it was the aftermath of Watergate.
1980 Reagan was far better looking than Jimmy.
1984 Reagan again looks better than Mondale.
1988 every woman knew G H. Bush was better looking than Dukakis.
1992 Clinton was far more handsome than H.Bush.
1996 Bob Dole and Ross Perot had no chance against the dashing and debonaire Clinton.
2000 in was a close call but, Gore was slightly better looking than G.H Bush, according to most women, and he actually won the popular vote.
2004. Looks was not one of John Kerry best attributes, to say the least. He had NO chance against W. Bush.
2008. Obama had McCain covered in that department for sure. McCain had no chance either.
That brings us to 2012. As far as looks goes, Romney is better looking than Obama, according to most women that I ask. But they are emtionally attached to Obama because of womens rights. That's the reason Obama is frantically going after the women vote.
This will be one of those close elections. This is why Obama must choose Hillary to run as VP with him. I think he will choose her and they will win. (also, women do NOT like the idea of Moron polygamy.) Moreover, I believe Romney will screw up with women somewhere during the campaign.
If that doesn't happen, get ready to count chads again Florida.