- Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:49 pm
Have just been reading something about presidential ages. In 1992, Bill Clinton was not only massively younger than George HW Bush, but he actively played on his youth, playing saxophone at rallies, campaigning on MTV and so on. He also tackled issues that he knew younger voters were interested in (such as environmentalism), knowing that even if they didn't agree with his stance, at least he seemed to acknowledge that it was an important subject and he'd take it seriously. Whereas Bush regarded such things as not even an issue.
OK, different times and drivers and so on. But it's worth pointed out that there have been shades of Trump's victory in several recent elections. Reagan won against Carter because, in part, he promised America that he'd put an end to post-Watergate and Vietnam soul searching and make people feel proud to be Americans again. Bush senior beat Dukakis by going on thee attack from the start and never letting up, forcing Dukakis onto a defensive footing. Bush and Obama were both relative outsiders standing against someone seen as deeply tied to the old regime, or simply old. Obama promised empowerment and change to people who felt disenfranchised*. And so on.
In light of all that, it makes this more understandable, if not any more palatable.
*OK, in that case the people were actually disenfranchised and under-represented...
"There ain't nothing you fear more than a bad headline, is there? You'd rather live in shit than let the world see you work a shovel."