LIBERAL DEMOCRATS: Do They Lose Presidential Elections Because They Are Controlled by...?

Question

Race Pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?

Answer 1

Kim, do you have an obsession with old black guys? I wonder because you love to ask the stupid questions don't you.

Answer 2

I would think that most people know that the democratic party is not controlled by either Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Just as the Republican party is not really controlled by their right wing elements.. There is a natural ebb and flow to politics. Presidential Elections are won and lost by the undecided vote. In any election 40 % of voters will vote republican....40 % of voters will vote democrat. The race is actually determined by who connects best with the 20% that represents the number of undecided voters.

Answer 3

The last two presidential elections were stolen by Republicans.

We won the two before that.

Whoever told you Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton run the Democratic party was lying to you.

Answer 4

did you comprehend some thing about polls? did you comprehend what the margin of blunders is? What it potential in this party is that the hottest republicans are both statistically tied with or interior a percentage aspect or 2 of the hottest democrats. did you comprehend the way many seats the democrats lost in November? 0. None. the in problem-free words reason the Dem's did not win more suitable seats interior the senate is there have been no more suitable to win. in problem-free words a nil.33 of the senate runs each 2 years. The "32 of the finest 40 4 years" remark is incomprehensible. i visit throw out a range and say that out of the finest seventy 4 years, 40 or more suitable than 1/2 were with democrats. .

Answer 5

No, they lose elections by running plastic manequins and revivified corpses like Gore and Kerry for president. If they'd just run a candidate who was only mildly distateful and had a hint of a personality, they'd have won the last two elections.

Answer 6

1. Race Pimps don't control liberal democrats, money does.

2. Al Gore won the election in 2000.
A "liberal" is going to win in 2008.

Answer 7

Republicans usually nominate good ol' boys that are endearing but a tad slow, whereas the Democrats tend to nominate intellectuals that are slightly socially awkward and often ugly. Since the real decision is based on which candidate is more likable, the more overall attractive candidate wins.

Some exceptions are Bill Clinton, who was suave and sharp as a tack. Nixon and Bush Sr. also relied on intellect, which explains why Bush Sr. lost to Clinton, and why Nixon was relatively unpopular.

Dubya and Reagan were the poster boys of the modern Republican. Bill Clinton was an excellent and highly competitive candidate who was smart enough to get the nomination. Normally the Democrats nominate bad candidates. Gore was smart but socially awkward. Had he not been awkward he would've stomped Bush. Kerry is slightly odd looking.

Answer 8

I am not a liberal or a democrat, but your question is even somewhat offensive to me. Why do you have to phrase it quite that way? I don't like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton either, and I do agree that they are racist. But why stoop to their level?

Answer 9

Bingo. And Sugar Daddies like George Soros. So many left wing organizations have their fingers in the libs pie, theres none left for your everday regular liberal. Real shame too.

Answer 10

They don't help thats for sure. I was a democrat for a long time but I can't stand them any more. They are just the other side of the same coin.

All you democrats and republicans fed up with your crappy parties? Join the Libertians.

Answer 11

Ummm... they won twice before the "Bush" years: were the Neo-Cons controlled by race pimps during those years?