I was not predicting history, you silly fool.
The issue arose when one of you reactionaries claimed that Gov Christie of NJ was a favorite presidential candidate. I was pointing out his negatives, which are:
He is virtually unknown.
He is a screamer. Observe how Howard Dean's fortunes plummeted and he was famous for only one scream. By 2012, there will be HOURS of Christie negativism for admen to work with.
He is gaining favor among the right because he is axing programs and reducing benefits; even when this is justified, this rarely produces nearly as much good publicity as bad publicity.
He is fat.
Nixon was not handsome, but he was not as hideously ugly as Phil Gramm of Texas.
You could add short to the list of probably prohibitive qualities.
James Madison, though certainly capable, was a 5'0" pipsqueak. I doubt that he would have a chance at any presidential nomination today.
Again, I am not saying anything about how specific individuals thing. But as a group, voters seem to be rather foolish. We get annoying 30-second negative ads on both sides because admen have found that they deliver the larger number of votes for the least cash outlay and the least expertise in creating them.
Advertising the product has become more important than the results the product produces, and this is true of politicians as well as detergent.
Maxwell House and Folgers are far from being the best coffee, and soft drinks are far less effective at quenching thirst than simple water. Now, admen have a large number of the populace paying 1000 times more for water in a plastic bottle than for tap water, and it is normally no better.
Try to focus on what I am saying rather than attacking me, please.
