mjd1001 Posted June 23, 2020 Share Posted June 23, 2020 (edited) I had a long discussion with a few friends about this...and while many of us understand this..it wasn't apparent until we broke it down. If your party wants to win a presidential election, your candidate should be someone younger or newer to National politics.........older in age, well established veteran Washington DC politicians don't do so well in the past few decades: -1992, young newcomer Bill Clinton beats George H Bush -1996, Clinton beats older, long time politician Bob Dole -2000, Bush Jr (new to Washington politics, although not his family) Beats long time Washington politician Al Gore -2004, Bush Jr Beats John Kerry, who had been in Congress for almost 20 years -2008, Obama, younger and a relative newcomer, beats Washington Veteran John McCain. -2012, Obama beats Romney (best recent example of two 'younger' candidates against each other) -2016, Trump Beats Clinton. While not young, Trump wasn't the Washington DC veteran...against Hillary who many in the country viewed as the best example of typical Washington insiders I'm sure there have been exceptions and will be exceptions in the future...but the rule seems to be if your party wants to win....have your candidate be younger and fairly new to Washington...do NOT have a candidate 65-70 or older and viewed as someone with long time ties to Washington DC. The problem is....the voters/party members are the ones who select their candidate in the primaries. I'm sure many people who are very dedicated to their party may not like this...but it seems the best way for EITHER party to win election is you find a candidate who is younger, moderate within their party, and someone who is fairly new to Washington. Edited June 23, 2020 by mjd1001 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChans Posted June 23, 2020 Share Posted June 23, 2020 25 minutes ago, mjd1001 said: I had a long discussion with a few friends about this...and while many of us understand this..it wasn't apparent until we broke it down. If your party wants to win a presidential election, your candidate should be someone younger or newer to National politics.........older in age, well established veteran Washington DC politicians don't do so well in the past few decades: -1992, young newcomer Bill Clinton beats George H Bush -1996, Clinton beats older, long time politician Bob Dole -2000, Bush Jr (new to Washington politics, although not his family) Beats long time Washington politician Al Gore -2004, Bush Jr Beats John Kerry, who had been in Congress for almost 20 years -2008, Obama, younger and a relative newcomer, beats Washington Veteran John McCain. -2012, Obama beats Romney (best recent example of two 'younger' candidates against each other) -2016, Trump Beats Clinton. While not young, Trump wasn't the Washington DC veteran...against Hillary who many in the country viewed as the best example of typical Washington insiders I'm sure there have been exceptions and will be exceptions in the future...but the rule seems to be if your party wants to win....have your candidate be younger and fairly new to Washington...do NOT have a candidate 65-70 or older and viewed as someone with long time ties to Washington DC. The problem is....the voters/party members are the ones who select their candidate in the primaries. I'm sure many people who are very dedicated to their party may not like this...but it seems the best way for EITHER party to win election is you find a candidate who is younger, moderate within their party, and someone who is fairly new to Washington. People young and old, left and right, for the most part HATE politicians. The less time a person has been a politician, the better a candidate they are in the minds of the electorate. Hilariously enough, this results in folks who can kinda suck at navigating the quagmire, because they are inexperienced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts