Before supporting any candidate, I believe one should do this thought experiment.

[redgreenandblue]

Consider the following two groups:

Group 1: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump

Group 2: Bob Dole, Al Gore, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton

Now pick your favorite primary candidate and ask yourself, just from the gut, which group would you sort them into?

[walkingman]

1. Obviously Group 1 - since they would be the President.

Their polical party pretty much defines them as far as I'm concerned. The only one that doesn't apply is Trump who is not only an asshole but a disgusting asshole.

[thesquanderer]

2. It took me a minute to figure out what those groups were based on!

But yes, winners vs. losers... and the winners were the more charismatic personalities.

Here's a question in return: Of our 20-ish candidates, who do you think has enough charisma to clearly make it into the first group?

[brooklynite]

3. "winners" is part of it...so is "outsiders"

[thesquanderer]

4. I don't know about that...

I think Romney was as much of an outsider as Clinton (both governors... in fact Romney just a single term); and while GWB could be in that group, the fact that he was the son of GHWB kind of negates that, I think.

[brooklynite]

5. "outsiders" in the context of Washington...

[thesquanderer]

8. Yes, that was the context in which I answered (i.e. about governors) n/t

[BlueMississippi]

15. Mitt Romney was an outsider nt

[The Mouth]

14. On Charisma, alone?

-Beto
-Pete
-Booker

[crazytown]

6. Biden is Group 2 - candidates on their second or their try for the nomination

and presidency.

Dole: 1980, 1987, 1996
Gore: 1988, 1992, 2000
McCain: 2000, 2008
Romney: 2008, 2012
HRC: 2008, 2016
Biden: 1988, 2008, 2020

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump all won with their first campaign.

My candidate Warren, is group one.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

11. Nixon 1960, 1968...Reagan 1976, 1980...Bush Sr 1980, 1988

[crazytown]

12. Neither Group 1 or 2

Biden could join them, if he wins.

[TygrBright]

7. Group 1: Three failures and a success. Group 2: 3 successes, 2 failures?

Does that make Group 2 better than Group 1?

Mind you, putting John McCain in the "successes" category in Group 2 is a triumph of lifelong sincere dedication to public service over a shortish period of end-justifies-the-means opportunism and compromise, and the balance was pretty even for a bit there... but overall I'd say it was a life of humanity (albeit one making choices I wouldn't have made) making sacrifices for larger good.

Unfortunately Bill Clinton, while all too human, allowed his flaws to dictate far too many opportunistic end-justifies-the-means calculations to really be called a success, either.

Not actually sure what you're getting at, here?

curiously,
Bright

[crazytown]

9. Group 1: All won the presidency on their first campaign.

Group 2: Two or more primary campaigns - fell short.

[TygrBright]

24. I would find that more meaningful in a system that wasn't as badly broken/corrupted. n/t

[LanternWaste]

10. Why do you believe this should be thought through prior to supporting a candidate?

[BlueMTexpat]

18. +1 eom

[IronLionZion]

13. Group 2 includes 2 Dems who got more votes

So we can't just win, we have to win big in enough states to win the electoral college.

America elected a wheelchair-bound socialist and a conservative Hollywood actor in record landslides before so anything can happen.

We all thought Hillary would be in Group 1 and Dumpy a small footnote in Group 2 but voters decided to "shake things up".

[JI7]

17. America never elected a socialist for president

and Reagan had been governor.

[IronLionZion]

20. FDR's new deal had government means of production, lots of public works and programs

Sounds like socialism

[JI7]

22. that's not socialism. if that's socialism then just about everyone is a socialist

even Reagan

[DrFunkenstein]

16. Also, Think Which Character From Sex in The City That Candidate Is Most Like

If you think about it long enough, you will realize that it has no relevance whatsoever.

But keep in mind that the country is not ready for a Catholic president, so don't waste your vote on John Kennedy unless you want Nixon to win.

[JI7]

19. if the economy is not shit like when Clinton and Obama ran

its easier for republicans to cheat.

[Clash City Rocker]

26. Trump's ratings are abnormally low for a president in a good economy

And indicators suggest there may be a recession coming.

[elocs]

21. My candidate is the nominee of the Democratic Party, so it's a mystery to me now. n/t

[peggysue2]

23. Likability

Group 1--Bill Clinton: It's the economy, Stupid and I feel your pain; GW: they guy you'd like to have a beer with, compassionate conservative; Barack Obama: Yes, we can, perceived as The One; Donald Trump: appeals/appealed to the those left behind in the global economy, a self-proclaimed billionaire with a Barnum & Bailey presentation, Only I can solve your problems.

Group 2--Only John McCain had the spark of likability, the renegade. But even that was diminished once he ran and chose the ridiculously uninformed Sarah Palin as a running mate. Sadly, Hillary Clinton was savaged by right and left-wing smears and innuendo, enough that her likability went well underwater. Same with Al Gore. Bob Dole and Mitt Romney were perceived as flat, stiff personalities, not terribly likable.

So, my current choice of Joe Biden as our nominee falls into Group 1. Say what you will about Biden but he is manifestly likable to a large swath of the Democratic electorate, even with his warts and flaws. And likability holds a mysterious sway over voters, that need to identify with a candidate on a personal, emotional level. Biden does the personal, emotional stuff easily because it's part of who and what he is.

Is that the only factor? Of course not. Just one more thread in voting preferences, IMHO.

[HeartlandProgressive]

25. unclear on what this is about