[Gaffer]

I think analysis of conditions back then is futile myself. The conventional GOP has been working a very long time to subvert actual free choice of its candidates, and they will resort to all manner of trickery and subterfuge to accomplish it.

Further, history from then is primarily via the main stream media...no internet, no free exchange of ideas and information and no real opportunity for those among us to speak out effectively. In the end, it boils down to personal perceptions, right or wrong, but they really didn’t matter, IMO.

[Dr. Sivana]

I think analysis of conditions back then is futile myself.

There's a lot of truth in that statement. To some degree, however, those who can bring up such arguments in their favor (I mean the candidates) will inevitably turn to them to help make their case.

I remember when Reagan was running in '76, it was widely said that a governor wasn't a strong candidate due to lack of foreign policy experience. He repeatedly had to point to the behemoth that California was to be taken seriously as a national figure. Jimmy Carter got a pass the same year, but not from opponents like Scoop Jackson and Frank Church.

Now, the idea that being governor of even a medium sized state is not enough is laughable.

For the reason you state, I wouldn't even rule out an out there candidate with NO traditional resume in the near future (a Perot type), though I don't think it will happen this cycle.