@as the discussion between @thorninmud and @marinelife exemplifies: issues of differences and commonalities have to do with the scale of measurement you use. If we look at things at a fine enough level, we are all completely different. If we look at each other at the grossest level, we are all indistinguishable.
So ordinariness is a matter of philosophy as much as anything else. It is a matter of choice and identity. Do I want to distinguish myself from or connect myself to other others?
When a politician appeals to ordinary Americans, that politician is trying to place themselves smack dab in the middle of the electorate. If they can do that, they can win the election.
When a person identifies as ordinary, they are placing themselves smack dab in the middle of the electorate, or rather, they are being hopeful that the electorate is like them. That is to say that the politician they like is the politician who will be elected. So when @thorninmud says he is ordinary, I think he is being hopeful that his views are the ones endorsed by a majority
All I can say is that my candidate for President has been elected a minority of the time. So I am ordinary a minority of the time. On the other hand, my local candidates have be been elected a majority of the time. In my community, I am ordinary. I do not find this surprising.
I am an ordinary American some of the time, but not as often as others are. Not that this says much. But it is a philosophical question, anyway. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if it has much significance or consequence.