Michelle ran some programs while her husband was President, and her main qualification was the fact that she’d sweep Joe to a massive landslide.
She had hard, tough, primary fights.
I’m assuming that when she wins in November, giving her an unbroken streak of wins, you won’t count that either since the VP pick doesn’t change the result.
If she wins, you discount it; if she loses, you blame her. Good to know.
I should have written “loses winnable Presidential elections”. Obviously careerists win a lot of elections almost by definition. However they often struggle at the final hurdle against less experienced opponents as exemplified by Hillary, Romney, Kerry and Gore. (and counting total high-level political experience). Harris strikes me as very much being in that mould.
And obviously I am thinking of the top of the ticket. As I said earlier I think she is a good choice for VP candidate.
I heard on CNN that one reason, probably not the only one, for passing on Duckworth was to avoid being derailed into questions of citizenship since she was born in Bangkok. Ironic that we’ve entered that territory now, especially since unlike with Obama, the Republikans freely admit Harris was born in the US.
Seems to me like you’re adding qualifiers to make your statement be true. As if the others’ opponents weren’t careerist politicians (except for Hillary’s).
Romney and Kerry were running against incumbent presidents. Hard for me to argue that Obama at that point was “less experienced” than Romney (or Bush than Kerry).
As I’ve written on the Dope before, Michelle Obama made it very, very clear in her memoir Becoming that she has absolutely no interest - zero, zilch, nada, no way Jose - in ever running for elective office.
Agreed for Romney versus Obama. Much of Romney’s careerism was in the private sector. Kerry had a longer high-level political career than Bush even in 2004.
In any event the experience point was secondary. I am thinking more about a personality type: the kind of person who would be happy and successful methodically moving up the ladder in a large organization. I think Gore, Kerry, Romney and Hillary are all examples of that type compared to their respective opponents.
Your definition of “careerist” is post-hoc poppycock. There is nothing about any of these people that makes them less “careerist” than any of their opponents, with the probable exception of Hillary Clinton compared to Donald Trump, who really was something of an outlier in terms of presidential candidates. And the only reason Trump never had to move methodically up the ladder is that he was placed at the top of the ladder by his father.
It’s not post-hoc. If you go back and read profiles of Gore,Kerry, Romney and Hillary before their election results you would absolutely find common elements in the description like stiff, unlikable and overly calculating.
If the alternative to “overly calculating” is “shoot from the hip”, I prefer overly calculating given the importance of the issues being considered.
Actually it’s not so much about being calculating as seeming calculating. Voters are put off by politicians who are transparently ambitious.The successful ones create a persona and story which voters find appealing and which cloak their ambition. I think this is most true at the Presidential level simply because there is vastly more scrutiny.
So people want someone who can appear nonchalant and unambitious while at the same time thinking they are the right person for the job, even if the job is leader of the free world and POTUS?
One of the regular questions in job interviews is “where do you see yourself in five years?” and showing ambition in the answer is considered a good thing.
Well obviously running for President isn’t like a regular job interview.
I think what voters want is a leader with an inspiring vision for the country rather than a politician who is slavering to reach the last rung of the political ladder.
Or, you could have someone who IS ambitious and hardworking AND pays some dues in the minors before hitting the Big Show, AND comes across as affable and chill. See: Reagan, Clinton, Obama. None of them “came out of nowhere” and all of them had, in fact, political careers – and it still is a political career if you run and lose a few times (in Reagan’s case, a second career). Mondale and Gore et al just were “stiffs” by personality.
Well yeah I am not arguing for a Democratic Trump with zero political experience and that’s probably not what voters usually want either. And what’s important is less the length of the resume than whether that resume defines the candidate.
Biden is an interesting case of a politician with an absurdly long career but who has also created a persona that voters relate to. Part of it is the personal tragedies that he has faced and part of it is an affable regular-guy persona which is at least somewhat genuine. He is obviously ambitious but I don’t think he is perceived by voters as such.
I also think that 2020 may be an unusual year where voters might actually prefer an experienced pro but that may not be true next time.
Too bad it’s not like a regular job interview; surely the 2016 election would have ended very differently.
“Don’t call us, we’ll call you… never.”