even private sector executive experience more than Democrats. From my perspective. Democrats tend to fall in love (speaking figuratively, not romantically) with a candidate.
Additionally, as far as Dukakis, I think there's a difference between setting out a set of criteria in the abstract, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, coming up with reasons why your specific candidate is the best one. I chose Obama in 2008. At first, I did so solely on the basis of who I thought had the best shot at winning the general. Then, as I was selling him to others, and defending him against supporters of other candidates, I fell in love (again, figuratively, not romantically). After that, I wasn't dispassionate at all. I was just knee jerk defending him, even when, in other circumstances, I would have conceded a point or two. Or at least just been silent.
With regard to Truman and Johnson, their VP experiences don't matter much, because at the time each won his sole Presidential race, he'd been President for a while
.
Yes, but you're mixing apples and oranges as to the reasons I mentioned them.
As you recall, you posted only about electability, whereas my reply added the issue of what kind of President people have actually made because both issues are important.
Johnson and Truman were both examples of why serving as Vice President doesn't necessarily add to one's ability to govern. My additional point about Truman, who appears on the ten best US presidents ever lists of both Republican and Democratic historians, was that he had failed at every other thing he'd tried, but still succeeded as President, so formulas don't tell us much. He did not even have a college degree. Today, he never would have made it even to Vice President.
Something just occurred to me that I did not mention in my prior post and, in fairness to the truth, should mention: Truman did have military service, World War I.
= new reply since forum marked as read