Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are considered top contenders for the White House based on their family connections and the perception that they are more seasoned than their rivals.
But there is no historical correlation between the levels of experience of presidential candidates and the outcome of elections.
In the past half century, the less experienced candidates have frequently won their elections. This was true when John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon in 1960; when Jimmy Carter bested Gerald Ford in 1976; when Ronald Reagan beat Carter four years later; when Bill Clinton ousted George H.W. Bush in 1992; and when George W. Bush beat Al Gore in 2000.
In 2008, Barack Obama beat several far more experienced candidates in both the Democratic primaries and the general election despite having begun his campaign after serving in the U.S. Senate for roughly two years.
When it comes to Jeb and Hillary the perception that they’re especially experienced is exaggerated to start with.
Jeb was a two-term governor of one of the nation’s largest states, sure. But another potential candidate – Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal – will have served longer than Bush by the time the first presidential primary rolls around, in addition to having served as member of Congress.
Hillary served as U.S. senator for about eight years, but she had no real accomplishments to show for it. Nor did she have any achievements to speak of as secretary of state.
A new set of polls from Quinnipiac University magnifies the challenges facing the Establishment favorites.
Voters surveyed in the swing states of Colorado and Iowa, by 24-point margins, said the would like to see the next president “change direction” from Obama’s policies. In Virginia, the margin was 30 points.
This is clearly bad news for Hillary, who has the burden of being a member of Obama’s party who supports many of the same policies. To the extent that she does tout her experience as secretary of state, she’ll also have to answer for the Obama administration’s mounting foreign policy failures.
But Jeb won’t be let off the hook just because he opposes many of Obama’s policies. Once the thirst for “change” takes hold in voters, it tends to not only put at risk members of the incumbent party, but anybody who represents the old guard.
Hillary found this out the hard way in 2008. Even though she ran on a similar policy platform to Obama’s, Democratic voters didn’t want to move past the Bush era only to go back to the Clinton era. They wanted a totally new start.
Obama was able to effectively turn any argument Hillary made about her vast experience into a lecture about how she was part of the same old Washington thinking. He used attacks on his lack of seasoning as a platform to rail against the cynicism in politics that he rejected in favor of hope.
It’s easy to see how a Republican challenger to Jeb could take a similar approach in portraying him as a character whose time has passed. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has gained steam as a Republican candidate in recent weeks was quoted last month as saying, “It’s difficult to make an argument about moving forward when you’re arguing about things from the past. I think the best … way is to have a fresh face with new ideas.” This, coupled with his anti-Washington rhetoric, could easily be a consistent message in a primary against Jeb and a general election against Hillary.
To be sure, simply declaring oneself the candidate who most represents change will not automatically be a winning strategy. Ultimately, Obama had to stand up to Hillary and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Reagan didn’t surge ahead in 1980 until he cleared the presidential threshold in American’s minds by cleaning Carter’s clock in their debate.
Beating Jeb and Hillary, will, no doubt, require hard work from one of their rivals. But for all the structural advantages that Jeb and Hillary enjoy, Americans don’t appear poised to make 2016 about restoring a family political dynasty to power.
