>Nixon insisted on campaigning until just a few hours before the first debate started. He had not completely recovered from his hospital stay and thus looked pale, sickly, underweight, and tired. He also refused makeup for the first debate, and as a result his beard stubble showed prominently on the era's black-and-white TV screens.
>Nixon's poor appearance on television in the first debate is reflected by the fact that his mother called him immediately following the debate to ask if he was sick. Kennedy, by contrast, rested and prepared extensively beforehand, appearing tanned,[note 1] confident, and relaxed during the debate.[20] An estimated 70 million viewers watched the first debate.[21] It is often claimed that people who watched the debate on television overwhelmingly believed Kennedy had won, while radio listeners (a smaller audience) believed Nixon had won.[21]
Is this seriously how people vote?
>>70501033
>shitting on based Nixon
Daily reminder that Tricky Dicky was the best president and did nothing wrong
television is the tool of the eternal Hiberian
>>70501091
I'm not shitting on him m8
people who watched chad mckennedy on tv thought he won the debate, but listening to voices only they thought nixon won.
>>70501033
This could logically be explained any other way
TV was more popular among progressive suburbanites. Radio was for older more conservative types. Hence the difference.
Notwithstanding that, yes, it has been found time and time again, that better looking candidates are more popular. Not only that, better looking people are perceived as more trustworthy, smarter, and better leaders. All of which may not be the case, but it doesn't really matter does it? Because reality is perception.
>>70501769
it does matter. people can elect the wrong person due to being swayed by superficial qualities like this, when they would have ended up happier in the long run with the uglier candidate who had better policies and ideas
>>70502119
>not reading the second half of my post
>>70501033
It all worked out in the end
Nixon, Bush and Johnson drank cold beers in Dallas a few years later
Poor Lee Harvey took one in the gut, still wondering what the fuck happened
Then one of the guys on the Warren Commission ended up as Vice President and pardoned old Dick for any and all crimes
Watergate was really about finding out if McGovern knew about that, Dallas thing
>>70503218
I read it because I'm specifically responding to
>but it doesn't really matter does it? Because reality is perception.
Nixon would have won the popular vote if it wasn't for voter fraud.
>>70501769
Wouldn't call either of them too progressive or conservative.
Nixon is still a guy who proposed a guaranteed minimum income, single payer healthcare, and did price/wage control but stopped when he found out it's not a good thing to control prices.
Richard was always sympathetic towards the poor since he himself grew up very poor.
Kennedy was just your average rich catholic who like all rich catholics was very anti-communist.
>>70505055
*and just because he would have won the popular vote wasn't too important since Kennedy would still have had more delegates
>>70501033
And this is why, in sensible political systems, you vote for parties, not people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boggs_Act_of_1952
A first offense conviction for marijuana possession carried a minimum sentence of 2 to 10 years and a fine of up to $20,000.
On November 2, 1951, Harry S. Truman signed the act into law
Kennedy did not repeal it.
Johnson was a shitter who did not repeal it.
The Nixon administration repealed mandatory sentences for marijunana. Reagan brought it back.
>>70505239
You do vote for a party in the US.
Do you not know that the congress is based on popular vote?
And we have just as much shit as they have in the US.
Both VVD and PVDA try to betray their voters every moment they can.
They say yes but go no, pvda promises x but gives in to y. VVD says nay but goes yay.
All a bunch of crooks.
