as Chinese lives in uk, they had been my questions for a long time: why did you guys voted for david cameron, barack obama, (any politician, really) at all? had they ever struggled to pay their bills? do they really feel your pain?
Once upon a time, a lot more power was held by local politicians, who were often from the working class. Over time, more and more of that became centralized, and the ability to speak well in public is not something that even most professional class jobs prepare you for. Put a programmer up against a lawyer or a CEO, and the programmer will not do well. We not only have mostly professional class politicians, they are overwhelmingly from only a few of those professions, because there are only a few that prepare you to speak, from a script, to a large group of strangers, staying on message and keeping your message short and clear.
It’s a good question. The last genuine PM we had was John Major, the son of a gardener who studied at night school while working for his father during the day. Before him was Maggie Thatcher, an industrial chemist by trade.
All since then have been career politicians from the political class. Blair went to Fettes, the “Scottish Eton”. Cameron and Boris were classmates at Eton and Oxford. Even Jeremy Corbyn, supposed champion of the Workers never worked a day in his life. He will likely be followed as leader of the Labour Party by Sir Kier or Lady Nugee.
Only because you can only vote for the candidates on the ballot paper and the two main parties have already been captured. There are other parties of course, but they are loons or worse.
Ironically Boris has done much more real work in his life than Corbyn, but neither has very much in common with the average voter-taxpayer.
The federal government has very little influence on how people live their daily lives. Because many people no longer believe that elections matter, they're more than happy to vote for the most entertaining candidate.
I don't see a clear connection because:
1. the current U.S. president won without having either of those attributes you imply are worth mentioning
2. Bernie Sanders hits both of your imagined electability points and couldn't even beat Hillary Clinton to gain the Democratic nomination last election.
3. Bill Clinton, probably the epitome of "relatable and struggled," did beat George H. Bush who was the opposite of that. But George H. had already been president for four years!
4. OMG Sarah Palin! It's as if the universe read your question and traveled back in time to deliver the perfect counterexample to your implication. Remember that Republican voters absolutely loved her folksy ways, her seemingly unrehearsed speeches, and her professed rejection of PC culture and Democratic elitism. She was unfortunately so much like the average voter that she lacked the basic competency necessary to run. That was noticed by the voting public and it did help tank McCain's campaign.
So yes-- relatability and personal story are an inescapable part of American politics. Also, major triads probably make up a significant proportion of Mozart's symphonies. But if one implies that's all there is to talk about in either case it doesn't show an understanding of the subject matter.
Edit: protect against irrelevant digressions.
my questions are really about you, as voters, not campaign strategist. your analytical response reminds me the episode of West Wing, about 'presidential'.
my questions were for US voters as well.
Thank god that people vote for people like Cameron and Obama. Both are examples of politics working. Competent, middle-of-road types, not ideological, willing to compromise, intelligent...the aim of politics is to further the aims of the people (both were democratically elected) and do so with competent leadership. They are both examples of processes built up over centuries working (even Trump is, in terms of personal values he is disgusting...but this is a democratic choice of the people, and seeing the checks and balances of the American system jumping into action is very reassuring).
Politics isn't a suffering competition where we all get really angry about the bad things that happened to us, and compete to see who has suffered the most grief. A politics built on jealousy, pain, and suffering is no politics at all (for references, Chinese history is the perfect example of this...Mao achieved something that Hitler never could, he convinced ordinary people to murder their neighbours in cold blood, how? Jealousy, pain, and suffering...works every time).
you are absolutely right about "Politics isn't a suffering competition", but I'd argue it's a reasonable(even good) starting point: only when you want no one no more people suffering the same as you, you are motivated to play the game of politics.
on the example of Mao, I have no problem with your opinion. however I'd like to point out you simply couldn't use it as 'fact' to support your argument. it only weakens your position.