You’re assuming that Clinton’s demographic, education, career track, or appearance were what turned voters off to her. Would you instead recommend that the party nominate someone who resembles her in policies?
All that stuff almost won her the election, so I hope we did learn from it. What lost her the election was:
The comey memo.
Trumps lies to the rust belt, and her failure to counteract them
the Kremlin and the GOp lies and attack pieces, which were helped spread by the Bernie bros.
Hillary was a good solid choice for 2016.
I’m presuming that a candidate who reminds voters of Hilary will be at a disadvantage, not necessarily because of the characteristics themselves but because it will remind them of Hilary.
I don’t know whether Hilary’s proposed policies would help or harm.
Other than her age and possession of a vagina, how is she like Hillary?
demographics: do you mean being a woman of a certain age?
education: yes, she’s well-educated. Aren’t most pols these days?
career track: did I miss the part where having been married to the President gave her the stature to move into a state and run for Senator there?
appearance: again, besides age and possession of a vagina, I’m not seeing it.
And even taking age into account, I’d say Kirsten Gillibrand looks more like Hillary than Warren does, and Gillibrand has only a passing resemblance to Hillary.
That’s all it takes.
Age, gender and they’re both fairly wonky.
You don’t find significant resemblance in both the involuntary part of their appearance and their styling? Imgur: The magic of the Internet
Both are late 1940s-born, midwestern, law graduate, (former/current) female senator. Early on, both focused on how their specialty applied to children.
A related aspect: With the exception of LBJ who got in on JFK’s corpse and Carter, who I presume was chosen as the anti-Nixon, Democrat presidents have had a bit of a charming playboy aspect to them since at least FDR. Maybe that’s not required and Warren can get elected. If the Democrats choose her, I really hope she does because 4 more years of President Camacho doesn’t sound good.
Yeah, Harry Truman was such a playa!
Only incidentally. Warren’s hair is much shorter, almost looks from the front like it was pulled back in a bun. Hillary’s do is much fuller, doesn’t look at all like that.
Age, yep. Law graduate? Probably describes most of Congress. Senator? Yeppers there too. Along with Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, etc. Lots of Senators run for President! Effect of their specialty on children? Didn’t know that about Warren, and these days most people would have to be reminded of “it takes a village.” Midwestern? I can’t remember a time when people thought of Hillary as Midwestern.
Meaningful similarities that people would actually notice still seem to sum up as “woman of a certain age.”
Also Truman. But if we restrict it to postwar Presidents who initially became President through election, that gives us a sample space of four: JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Obama. Unless there’s a really strong pattern involving all four of them, the small sample size kills it.
Yes, the Democrat president who never actually got elected to the presidency didn’t have to have the same charisma.
Carter was chosen as the Mr Rogers president after all the Republican nastiness of the 60s and 70s and then the US electorate decided to keep it at 1 term, never do that again and elect a Hollywood actor for 2 terms.
If you don’t think Warren will remind the electorate of Hilary, I guess we’ll find out if she’s nominated. I think the Democrats are on their way to making the same mistake they did in 2016.
You’re right. My case isn’t as strong as I thought, although I will note that, like LBJ, he got in on the charismatic president’s corpse and was elected as an incumbent which seems to be a significant advantage. If Warren had been a vice president who became president through death and had to get elected as an incumbent, her chances would be pretty good.
I think this presumption is incorrect.
The Democrats didnt make a mistake, other than letting Bernie run.
What shot down Hillary was the Comey Memo (and this was after the Nom), the negative attacks from the kremlin, GOP and Bernie bros, and Trumps lies to the rustbelt and Hillary failure to counteract them. Only the last can be laid to the dems fault.
You’re kind of whittling down your search criteria so much, I’m sure you can see it’s a little silly. No riding a corpse, let’s not count the “anti-Nixon” candidate, and frankly describing Obama as a “playboy” doesn’t ring true to me.
Yes, being a charming middle aged man is probably still a net positive for electability but not necessarily key.
I do admit that I’ve had to introduce caveats. As RTFirely notes, we have a bunch of anecdotes to work with and societies have time to change over decades.
Still, it’s surely it’s significant that 2/3 of the non-charismatic Democrat presidents since WWI have ridden a corpse into office and that the one that didn’t served only 1 term, is regarded as an underwhelming president and was followed by Reagan.
You can be a physically and morally repulse middle-aged or old man if you’re a Republican candidate, though.
No, there’s no reason to believe it’s significant. Small sample size, subjective judgments in categorizing Presidents, you’re trying to make something out of nothing.
ETA: Basically what CarnalK said, just expressed in a different way.
Hopefully.
So, all of the presidents who were either JFK or Bill Clinton were playboys. Yes, that’s certainly true.
That was before we knew he had lusted in his heart!