WWTBAM Bored

to talk or write about the single most important factor that voters have taken into account since at least as far back as 1932: wookus size.

In every single election, with the exception of Ford in '76, the candidate with the bigger wookus has won.

It's obvious that Obama has a huge advantage here.

I guess I can kind of see why there might be some reluctance to dwell on this, but still ... you'd think that we'd at least hear something about it.

Okay, so here are the individual rankings. Did you obtain the actual data through a Freedom of Information Act request? In most cases, we don't know how these guys would have fared against each other in different matchups.

Hoover < FDR
Landon < FDR
Willkie < FDR
Dewey < FDR
Dewey < Truman
Stevenson < Eisenhower
Nixon < Kennedy
Goldwater < Johnson
Humphrey < Nixon
McGovern < Nixon
Carter < Ford
Carter < Reagan
Mondale < Reagan
Dukakis < GHW Bush < Clinton
Dole < Clinton
Gore < GW Bush
Kerry < GW Bush

wbtravis007 wrote:to talk or write about the single most important factor that voters have taken into account since at least as far back as 1932: wookus size.

TheConfessor wrote:Okay, so here are the individual rankings. Did you obtain the actual data through a Freedom of Information Act request? In most cases, we don't know how these guys would have fared against each other in different matchups.

Hoover < FDR
Landon < FDR
Willkie < FDR
Dewey < FDR
Dewey < Truman
Stevenson < Eisenhower
Nixon < Kennedy
Goldwater < Johnson
Humphrey < Nixon
McGovern < Nixon
Carter < Ford
Carter < Reagan
Mondale < Reagan
Dukakis < GHW Bush < Clinton
Dole < Clinton
Gore < GW Bush
Kerry < GW Bush

Nonononono...obviously you're being to narrow, Col. Travis. It's not wookus size.

My theory, as borne out by the vast majority of the results posted by the Confessonator above, is that each winner just had bigger balls than the loser. Look at Nixon's two wins, f'rinstance. That man had the biggest balls in history. And Slick Willie (despite the wookus-y name) had a pretty big set, too.

Which means that, since Hillary still has that particular set in a vice grip, she's pretty much a shoo-in.

KillerTomato wrote:

wbtravis007 wrote:to talk or write about the single most important factor that voters have taken into account since at least as far back as 1932: wookus size.

TheConfessor wrote:Okay, so here are the individual rankings. Did you obtain the actual data through a Freedom of Information Act request? In most cases, we don't know how these guys would have fared against each other in different matchups.

Hoover < FDR
Landon < FDR
Willkie < FDR
Dewey < FDR
Dewey < Truman
Stevenson < Eisenhower
Nixon < Kennedy
Goldwater < Johnson
Humphrey < Nixon
McGovern < Nixon
Carter < Ford
Carter < Reagan
Mondale < Reagan
Dukakis < GHW Bush < Clinton
Dole < Clinton
Gore < GW Bush
Kerry < GW Bush

Nonononono...obviously you're being to narrow, Col. Travis. It's not wookus size.

My theory, as borne out by the vast majority of the results posted by the Confessonator above, is that each winner just had bigger balls than the loser. Look at Nixon's two wins, f'rinstance. That man had the biggest balls in history. And Slick Willie (despite the wookus-y name) had a pretty big set, too.

Which means that, since Hillary still has that particular set in a vice grip, she's pretty much a shoo-in.

Hmmm. An interesting theory. We don't have much of a sample yet to know whether size -- (whether we're talking about the wookus here or the balls, as KT posits) -- can be imputed to a spouse.

I don't suppose anyone would seriously suggest that Pat Nixon (spouse of #1 in KT's rankings) would have been a benificiary of any of that in a political race, but she wouldn't have really been considered to have a "vice grip" on anything, for that matter, either.

This is kind of new territory, this Hillary stuff. I think that someone should research this for a dissertation or something.

Pat Nixon -- no vice grip. Hillary Clinton -- vice grip (arguably). Compare and contrast imputation of husbands' stuff. (Wookus, as my research shows, or balls, as KT suggests.)

I guess somewhere in all of that strap-ons might come into play.

Pat Nixon -- no vice grip. Hillary Clinton -- vice grip (arguably).

I think you mean "vise grip."

Vice = immoral action, bad habit, flaw

Vise = a clamping tool

Eh.....I just looked it up, & found that "vice" is an acceptable alternate spelling for the clamping device. But I'm gonna nitpick anyway!

VAdame wrote:

Pat Nixon -- no vice grip. Hillary Clinton -- vice grip (arguably).

I think you mean "vise grip."

Vice = immoral action, bad habit, flaw

Vise = a clamping tool

Eh.....I just looked it up, & found that "vice" is an acceptable alternate spelling for the clamping device. But I'm gonna nitpick anyway!

My dad used to remove our loose teeth with vise grips. That string and doorknob thing was just silly. The string always came untied. Vise grips stay on.

wbtravis007 wrote:to talk or write about the single most important factor that voters have taken into account since at least as far back as 1932: wookus size.

In every single election, with the exception of Ford in '76, the candidate with the bigger wookus has won.

It's obvious that Obama has a huge advantage here.

I guess I can kind of see why there might be some reluctance to dwell on this, but still ... you'd think that we'd at least hear something about it.

Here at my house, we consider Georgie Bush, Junior, to be a dickless wonder. Going by your theory, then Kerry and Gore must be even more dickless.

How do they pee?

Sitting down, duh.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:

wbtravis007 wrote:to talk or write about the single most important factor that voters have taken into account since at least as far back as 1932: wookus size.

In every single election, with the exception of Ford in '76, the candidate with the bigger wookus has won.

It's obvious that Obama has a huge advantage here.

I guess I can kind of see why there might be some reluctance to dwell on this, but still ... you'd think that we'd at least hear something about it.

Here at my house, we consider Georgie Bush, Junior, to be a dickless wonder. Going by your theory, then Kerry and Gore must be even more dickless.

How do they pee?

It's a matter of physics. When the head goes far enough into the rear-end, the wookus becomes riidiculously bulbous.

The other two that you name are a little above normal, according to my research.

It's just the head-up-the-ass aspect that they coudn't quite deal with.

I'm sure you may have answered this in some fashion, but then again maybe not. I'm all about the symbolic and the metaphysical and the cosmic. Do metaphorical balls carry the same weight, or do vise-gripped metaphorical balls do so, as actual extant attached balls? Are we comparing associated or imputed balls on an equal basis? And if so, do the metaphorical balls have to have some sort of virtual specifications in order to be compared?

This is all bothering me greatly. Much more so, obviously, than the work I need to get done.

Oh. I guess metaphorical wookusi would fall into the same brushpile.

wbtravis007 wrote:to talk or write about the single most important factor that voters have taken into account since at least as far back as 1932: wookus size.

In every single election, with the exception of Ford in '76, the candidate with the bigger wookus has won.

It's obvious that Obama has a huge advantage here.

Are you sure? There may be questions even compared to "Hillary".

Ritterskoop wrote:

VAdame wrote:

Pat Nixon -- no vice grip. Hillary Clinton -- vice grip (arguably).

I think you mean "vise grip."

Vice = immoral action, bad habit, flaw

Vise = a clamping tool

Eh.....I just looked it up, & found that "vice" is an acceptable alternate spelling for the clamping device. But I'm gonna nitpick anyway!

My dad used to remove our loose teeth with vise grips. That string and doorknob thing was just silly. The string always came untied. Vise grips stay on.

<shudder>