What do the 2nd and 3rd question have to do with the 1st? I don't see a clear connection because: 1. the current U.S. president won without having either of t

What do the 2nd and 3rd question have to do with the 1st? 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.