1928

The last time the Republicans won the Presidency without a Nixon or a Bush on the ticket.

Thanks to Thom Hartmann for pointing that out.

Comments

Jerry Critter said…
A statistic that should be continued.
February 23, 2016 at 10:34 AM
isaac said…
I myself like the bumper sticker that reads 'The next Republican president hasn't been born yet'
February 23, 2016 at 12:25 PM
Anonymous said…
Ike was not Republican?
February 24, 2016 at 10:43 AM
KanaW said…
anonymous @ 10:43

Nixon was Ike's Veep.
February 24, 2016 at 11:19 AM
Anonymous said…
The post said there was no republican elected to the presidency since 1928. Wrong, Ike was elected president since 1928 and I see no reason why Nixon being vice-president changes that fact.
February 24, 2016 at 3:24 PM
Green Eagle said…
The post did not say that, you pathetic wanker.

And while we are on the subject, we've heard endless insults from you lately about how little other people supposedly know about the electoral process, and you didn't even know who Eisenhower's vice President was. You should read the part of the Bible about the beam in your eye.
February 24, 2016 at 4:16 PM
Jerry Critter said…
Anon needs to elevate his reading comprehension.
February 24, 2016 at 4:54 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's Okay, Never Mind

Image
The woman in this picture, equipped with the weapons and ammunition shown, was found outside a National guard base. She is apparently a big Glenn Beck fan, and believed that the base was a FEMA concentration camp. Think she's the only one out there? You just know this sort of thing is not going to end well.
Read more

If a Tree Falls In the Woods

Image
 And nobody hears it, is it really running for President at all? First of all, a note about my absence lately:  My wife got me to sign up for an account at Threads, which is sort of like X without the assholes.  I've spent a little time establishing myself there, and I have to say, I do like the relatively immediate exchange of views, but I don't mean to give up my blog- there are still so many things that can't be dealt with in a couple hundred words, so, perhaps to your dismay, I am back. So, what motivated the above question is the fact that the Sunday New York Times today had seven articles about Trump, and absolutely zero about Kamala Harris.   The Republicans have a problem with Harris, in that virtually everyone who sees her likes her and immediately understands how qualified she is to be President.  They have tried mightily the last month to find some way to smear her, but have been spectacularly unsuccessful- the tactics of character assassination ...
Read more

Wingnuts Slightly Annoyed about that $83 Million

Image
How can you look like a decrepit old geezer and an out of control two year old at the same time? I thought it might be nice to look in on wingnut world to see how they are taking yesterday's $83 million dollar Trump legal loss.  You kind of know that they will decide it shouldn't affect their opinion of him in any way, but it might be helpful to see just how the Republican party has trained them to reject any fact they don't like.  Not that surprisingly, a lot of the usual wingnut suspects didn't touch this loss at all, preferring to just ignore anything that interferes with their hateful daydreams, but here are a few excerpts from an article at Gateway Pundit, along with a sample of the hundreds of comments it received.  Enjoy.  Or not. "Trump attorney Alina Habba WENT OFF after the crooked New York City court slapped President Trump with an $83 million judgment for speaking out against the disgusting lies of a crazed woman who said he lured her into a Bergdorf Go...
Read more