Looking back over the biographies of the winners and losers of the last several Presidential elections, I’ve noticed a trend. The loser has more experience in politics and has usually been in Washington longer. This would tend to prove my theory that people see career politicians and Washington-bureaucrats as less in touch with America - supporting the notion that term limits would produce better candidates. Who can argue that experience in Washington does anything but insulate candidates from what’s going on in real world America?

Here’s how the last Presidential elections break out:

2000
George W. Bush - government before Presidential campaign - 5 years
Al Gore - government before Presidential campaign - 22 years

1996
Bill Clinton - government before Presidential campaign - 17 years
Bob Dole - government before Presidential campaign - 35 years

1992
Bill Clinton - government before Presidential campaign - 13 years
George Bush - government before Presidential campaign - 25 years

1988
George Bush - government before Presidential campaign - 21 years
Michael Dukakis - government before Presidential campaign - 27 years

1984
Ronald Reagan - government before Presidential campaign - 12 years
Walter Mondale - government before Presidential campaign - 21 years

1980
Ronald Reagan - government before Presidential campaign - 8 years
Jimmy Carter - government before Presidential campaign - 17 years

It appears the longer someone spends in politics, the less likely they are to win the Presidency. If my theory is accurate, then this should tell us all we need to know about the 2004 election:

2004
George W. Bush - 9 years in politics (3 in Washington)
John Kerry - 21 years (19 in Washington)

Maybe they’ll get the hint. We frankly just don’t care for career politicians. Run, win, serve, then get out.