People like “experience” because of the assumption that people’s past behavior and experiences are predictive of their future behavior.

Given that, if voters truly want change because of antipathy for the past 8 years, why would they vote for someone who’s voted 90% with the current administration? If they want someone who works for “the little guy” wouldn’t they want to vote for someone who has done so?

If they want change, should they vote for the combo of:

1. Pres candidate with credible message of change but less federal govt experience/VP less cred for change, more fed gov experience, or

2. Pres with no credible message of change, more fed gov experience/VP with NEITHER fed gov experience nor credibility to create change for the little guy?

Does that logic only make sense to democrats? I don’t see why that’s not crystal clear… except that deep down, 99% of human beings actually do NOT want change. We are pretty much all afraid of change. Even when we say we want it, we are still afraid of it.

Advertisements