Historically speaking, were the democrats smarter than the republicans?

>be a career politicians
>have media bias on your side
>have globalists and corporations on your side
>have foreign politicians and arab oil princes on your side
>make Bernie go out and support you after the DNC paid him off
>have celebrities go out and do videos to get people to vote for you
>even the GOP didn't want anything to do with Trump
>spend half a billion dollars more on your campaign than your opponent did
>still lose to a fucking TV oompa loompa that was doing clotheslines in WWE and selling steaks before that business went bust like everything else
>get so mad that you trash the VIP room and destroy a custom built TV by throwing an expensive bottle of champagne donated from Qatar
Did she doom herself when she said "Assad has to go"?

Cause I see no other way a person could fuck up this badly when you literally had everyone on your side.

>entire campaign consists of Hollywood celebrities doing silly poses, street chimpouts, calling your opponents racist and spreading conspiracy theories about Russia
>"""too smart"""

If you mean "appear too smart" then yes, that's part of the problem. There's a strong anti-intellectual current in the nation today, and the highly educated are believed to be the elite. (Though if you look at the exit polls, while the actual elite, ie. the rich, voted for Trump, the educated did not, regardless of income.)

...But since that violates the 25 year rule...

Before the 70's, and back in the days of the Dixiecrats, it was the Republicans that were associated with aloof intellectuals and theoretical philosophers, and the Democrats were the guys the average Joe could have a beer with. Suffice to say, things have 180'd since then (or 360'd, as the local lingo might prefer).

The two parties have flipped positions several times during their existence in all sorts of ways as, in the end, it's really just a Red team vs. Blue team sorta game. The key issues each team takes up, initially, have nothing to do with a united party-wide philosophy, and are really just adopted because they'll think it'll help them gain the most votes. Problem being, when that goes on long enough, the issue in question gathers momentum as more people join the party thinking that's what they're really about. So, as in so many other instances, each party begins to believe their own lies - at least until it no longer helps them win.

Which is why we have these odd conundrums today. Such as Democrats who tout for freedom of choice, but not guns, or Republicans who tout freedom of individuality, but not religion or personal morals, etc. All positions that, not all that long ago, they views entirely opposite of their current rhetoric.

but aren't the rich really the educated and the poor educated who don't like trump are socialists?

Or are they too smart to be rich

Humanities was a mistake

The absolute richest voted Trump. The absolute poorest voted Hillary.

Politics is a struggle between two basic groups of people.

One group wants to be in control of everyone and everything, and enrich themselves in the process. In the US, this is the Democrats.

The other group wants to be left alone. This is the Conservative/Small Government/Libertarians.

The former are passionate and dedicated to being politicians.

The latter want fuck all to do with politicians.

So no, the democrats are not "more intelligent", they're more statist. Totalitarian. Fascist.

>thinking it's as simple as big government / small government

Let me guess, you're lolbertarian who's trying to claim Trump as his.

well uhh the absolute poorest are so poor because they lack human capital so that does not surprise me

It's people who want to rule over you v people who want to be left alone.

Guess which group the useless people are in.

No, the real difference is pro-white vs anti-white. Your freedumz memeshit was never the real issue.

>fell for identity politics meme

Vast majority of people are identitarian by nature, while literally nobody but you and retarded commies believe it's about class and government size. Hence why literally nobody voted for Ron Paul.

Every time I see a post like this I chuckle. It really does beggar belief, doesn't it? What a monumental fuckup.

For some "strange reason", statistically, there aren't all that many really rich socialists. Granted, the few there are tend to be more vocal than most of the rich, but, given their position, they kinda have to be.

But it's not just America - humanity in general doesn't like the highly educated. The average Joe feels separated a from them, feels that such intellectuals are "all up in their head", detached from their reality and hung up on theory. I mean, there's a few places, like mayhaps Estonia and a few places in Asia, where this isn't the case, where being an intellectual isn't a potential political liability, but generally speaking, everywhere in the world, being perceived as a brain with no heart makes one unpopular, and maybe even a bit frightening.

And, once in a great while, you'll see a downright genocidal response to the educated, such as the Khmer Rouge.

I think it was Karl Rove who said that Americans prefer to have politicians they feel smarter than, as they believe it limits the damage they can do. That maybe an exaggeration, but certainly they prefer a politician they can relate to, and most people don't believe they can relate to someone with multiple PhD's that they actually earned. They'll be much more apt to warm up to an individual with a million times more money than they have, than a theoretical physicist, regardless of their political beliefs.

If Zizek and Chomsky ran for office, Zizek would win hands down, regardless of what political philosophies they actually touted.