Unfortunately, I think the winner of elections rarely has anything to do with being "the better man." It comes down to who has the most money and the loudest drum. I think Jerry Springer could win a seat in Congress if he ran because the vast majority just don't question platforms, don't think about the long term, don't even bother to think most of the time.

I believe every Republican that ran in NH won. Why? My guess is because NH is Republican and people always vote Republican because it's easier than learning about individual candidates. What was the Republican platform here? As far as I could tell, the main idea was that people shouldn't vote for the Democratic candidates. The secondary reason was the income tax which the Democrats were for. There's a lot of resistance to that idea, not because the amount of money people make isn't the best thing to base a tax on but because We've Never Done It That Way Before. I have NEVER heard any other explanation of the resistance to income tax and I doubt any of the folks who are so rabidly against it have any other explanation.

And the Republicans, as curmudgeon/Tom said in another thread, have loads of money. I received one mail ad from them and one phone call. The Repubs had enough dough to send me something like 30 slick mail ads and 10-15 phone calls. I got to yell at Bush on the phone although he didn't seem to notice. They have money. They couldn't care less that some of us are being killed by property tax. Mine is close to $3,000.00 (that's $4,674.49 Canadian), and I have a modest house on 2 acres out in the boonies.

It's a bit more than philosophical argument for me. I don't know how long I can afford to live here.

Claymore, it's always "the better man" when it's your candidate. Otherwise, you'd have to admit Clinton was the better man for two presidential elections.