Amazon.com Widgets

Should parties stop nominate sequel candidates

Asked by: MasturDbtor
  • History shows family members never poll as high as the original

    I supported Hillary in the general election (I supported Bernie in the primaries). I really wanted her to win.

    That being said choosing her was a bad bet from the get go. Look at history. "Sequel candidates", candidates who are related to previous candidates don't do well. John Q. Adams lost the popular vote and then won in the House of Representatives against Andrew Jackson and then served one term before losing to that same candidate. George W. Bush won two terms but both elections were very close, even though George H.W. Bush won in a landslide.

    There's a clear trend. Sequel candidates never poll as well as the originals. Voters want something fresh in elections. Furthermore a party nominating a relative (or spouse) of a previous president looks like favoritism rather than careful consideration of the candidate's qualifications.

    Parties should shy away from nominating candidates who are related to previous candidates unless it's abundantly clear that candidate is demanded by the general public (and not just reasonably liked within your own party).

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.