Boss rewriting history again.
The thing is, these same predictions were made about Ronald Reagan.
Uh, not really. Reagan had been governor of the largest state and had run once before. He was a credible candidate.
The most laughable one was that he was "too old" to be elected! Note, both Hillary and Sanders would be older than Reagan when they took office. We've certainly come a long way in our thinking on this, haven't we?
Yes, the average lifespan of an American has also gotten longer since 1980, but don't let that stop you. Of course, Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's when he was in office, so it was probably a valid concern.
Other than the age thing, it was that Reagan was too much of a "loose cannon" and would start WWIII... do you really trust Reagan with his finger on the red button? All through the primaries he was a running joke... a washed up B-film actor with no experience in Washington.
Again, also a two-term governor.
It's difficult for people who were not there at the time to comprehend this. When he won the GOP nomination, all the political insiders and pundits, the GOP establishment, the mainstream media, the DNC and Carter campaign were all predicting that Carter would beat him in a landslide.
No one was predicting that at all. People knew Jimmy Carter was in trouble by virtue of a challenge within his own party by Ted Kennedy and the fact that John Anderson was soaking up a lot of the liberal vote.
In fact, that is the primary reason Reagan selected GHWB as his running mate, to try and lock down some of the establishment party vote which his campaign thought was crucial at the time. Turns out, he didn't need any help, he won one of the most lopsided elections in history.
Reagan selected Bush because Ford wouldn't take the jobs without a promise he could be co-President. IN any event, the fact he needed an establishment running mate was a sign of weakness if you are running against an unpopular president with a word like "Misery Index" attached to him.