the word ‘include’ was included to leave me a lot of leeway about missing some of the big splashes.
i'm always singularly unimpressed by the ‘we haven't had an X become president in a long time’ arguments. because for any presidential candidate there are at least a few dozen moderately salient values of X for which this applies to them - there are just so damn many variables, and a small sample of presidents to date.
if i were going to pick one category factor to watch on Clinton in 2016, it'd probably be age (she'd be younger than Reagan was, but not by much), but if she can manage to look like she's in good shape i doubt that will matter much.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-12-08 12:10 am (UTC)i'm always singularly unimpressed by the ‘we haven't had an X become president in a long time’ arguments. because for any presidential candidate there are at least a few dozen moderately salient values of X for which this applies to them - there are just so damn many variables, and a small sample of presidents to date.
if i were going to pick one category factor to watch on Clinton in 2016, it'd probably be age (she'd be younger than Reagan was, but not by much), but if she can manage to look like she's in good shape i doubt that will matter much.