My bad.That was 1980 IIRC
I won't comment on Church
In your opinion then, do you think the Democrats would have likely nominated an Al Gore or a Gary Hart over a Dukakis in light of a greater Reagan victory in 1984?
Neither was the Soviet Union in that era. We aren't talking the Stalinist period. It is just a reality that incumbancy had a great advantage in American senatorial election.It helps that we don't imprison as many of our senators nor do we usually kill them off...
In your opinion then, do you think the Democrats would have likely nominated an Al Gore or a Gary Hart over a Dukakis in light of a greater Reagan victory in 1984?
However, while this is true, the fact that Senators stay on for a long time is not logically connected to fraudulent elections, and will not be any basis until duly connected.
Perhaps abolishing the Electoral College becomes part of the Democratic Party platform?
Bullshit. Here are the populations of the ten largest cities in the United States:Only over my New Englander dead body! Besides, it would degenerate American elections into a battle for the cities.
Bullshit. Here are the populations of the ten largest cities in the United States:
New York City: 8 million
Los Angeles: 3.8 million
Chicago: 2.7 million
Houston: 2.7 million
Philadelphia: 1.5 million
Phoenix: 1.4 million
San Antonio: 1.3 million
San Diego: 1.3 million
Dallas: 1.2 million
San Jose: 0.9 million
The tenth-largest city in the USA has less than a million people living in it. And the combined population of those ten largest cities is only 7.9% of the country's total population. It would be impossible to win the presidency while ignoring rural constituencies.
Source.
My bad.
Ah, a Dawkins man, are we?![]()
It helps that we don't imprison as many of our senators nor do we usually kill them off...
I suppose a few Islington Guardian readers and San Fran Lefties will be even more depressed.