BTRTN: Job App for POTUS... No Experience Required. Indeed, No Experience Preferred.

[reggieandlee]

Born To Run The Numbers looks back and reflects on what the history of Democratic Presidential nominees suggests about the prospects for the 2020 contenders:

http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2019/03/btrtn-job-app-for-potus-no-experience.html

Excerpts: "Somehow, however, the voting population of the United States has a different hiring philosophy. It’s as if they would conduct a job interview for a computer programmer by asking about the applicant’s proficiency as a dog groomer or endocrinologist. Or, worse still, they would say, 'So, you want to work for us a computer programmer? Just so you know: the more experience you have had as a computer programmer, the less attractive a candidate you are. We count relevant experience against you.' So it would appear to be. Repeatedly, Americans have chosen the candidate for President who has demonstrably less experience...
"Here’s another interesting fact... Democrats win when they nominate a youthful, relatively inexperienced charismatic. When they nominate a graying policy wonk, they lose. Think about that. John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama were all highly charismatic but nonetheless inexperienced candidates, and each would win the presidency while still in the forties. Democrats win when they embody generational change...
"In contrast, think about the imagery conjured by these names: Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. Each of these candidates could blow you away with their command of policy detail, global politics, and the practical workings of government. Every single one of them was over fifty --most well over fifty -- when nominated for president. And yeah, maybe every single one of them would have been a fine President. But here’s the significant thing they have in common: the Democratic losers over the past forty years were all wooden technocrats who suffered from chronic charisma deficit disorder."

[ehrnst]

1. BorntoRuntheNumbers.com...

an anonymous, snarky blog is your source?

And you might get some pushback from supporters of Liz Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.

[MrsCoffee]

2. All clickbait, all the time.

[reggieandlee]

4. Not sure what you mean....

What did you mean when you said "an anonymous blog..."
Born to Run the Numbers is not anonymous.
And yes, one would expect pushback from supporters of Warren, Sanders, and Biden. The article points out the weaknesses in their candidacies.

[ehrnst]

5. Where is the author's bio and credentials?

[karynnj]

3. Why is Jimmy Carter ignored in this simplistic analysis?

Not to mention, Bill Clinton had spent many years as Governor of Arkansas - so he was not exactly "inexperienced". Not to mention, had ANY of the latter candidates have won - and Gore, Kerry and Clinton were extremely close to winning, the narrative would have magically changed. As a "winner", they would have been seen through all the positive moments of their campaign - not the errors.

You would add to that the type of "pull the nation together" speech that any of them would have given. This would be followed by all the excitement of an inauguration and the type of what happened is what should have happened coverage that the media normally has.

The Dukakis memes would return to the technocrat who could move the country forward - as he did with Massachusetts. This WAS the story leading up to the convention and he was at one point 17 points ahead, before he was smeared by the Republicans.

Mondale would have been given the chance to define himself as the Minnesota liberal he was -- not just as Carter's VP who lost against Reagan.

Gore would have been seen as the heir to Clinton POLICY that worked, while not having the personal problems. Imagine the pictures of that inauguration - Gore with Tipper and their beautiful family. The family would have softened his image as President.

Kerry would have been seen as the charismatic improbable winner, who took courageous stands against the Vietnam War and the illegal support of the Contras and beat a war time President who had 60% approval a year before the election. (It should be mentioned that in 2000, pundits routinely called Kerry "charismatic".) I would imagine that although both Teresa and John Kerry are very private, the country would have been reintroduced to them and she would have been an amazing First Lady.

As to Hillary, we KNOW what was planned for election day -- with the symbolic breaking of the glass ceiling. That theme would have continued. What we would remember is the complete look of joy on her face and the faces of those around her.

Of course, coverage would have quickly turned back to more negative -- as happened for Bill Clinton and Barak Obama.