In a presidential candidate, what is experience to you?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:59:20 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  In a presidential candidate, what is experience to you?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: In a presidential candidate, what is experience to you?  (Read 2957 times)
Vega
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,253
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 30, 2014, 04:20:29 PM »

What do you define experience as when it comes to Presidential candidates?

A couple years in the Senate? Two terms as Governor, a combination of both? Something like that.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2014, 04:48:34 PM »

The ideal for me is some mix of executive experience and knowledge of Washington.

Potential candidates with the right mix (not necessarily who I'd vote for) would include Chris Christie (US Attorney and powerful Governor), Paul Ryan (Chairman of important committees), John Kasich (former Congressman and current Governor), Andrew Cuomo (US Cabinet and current Governor), Mike Pence, Tim Kaine, Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton (advisor to Governor Clinton, advisor to President Clinton, prominent Senator, US Cabinet.)

Romney's been busy enough in the eight years since he'd been Governor that I'd expect him to be familiar enough with Washington.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2014, 04:59:50 PM »

Depends more on the record, I'd rather a  current one-term Senator or one term Governor that went through alot of challenges and survived than a multi-termed Senator or 2nd term Governor that has had it comparatively easy and has pretty much had party majority and choir preaching everywhere.

So in that sense, I'd rather have Scott Walker than Mike Enzi or Orrin Hatch battle it out for GOP. Or Al Franken over Hillary Clinton for the Dems.

However ideally, yes I would prefer a re-elected Governor, or a re-elected Senator, or someone in various Cabinet positions.

But record beats tenure, experience is what we call mistakes as Wilde put it, and what's tenure if the candidate is safe? And a candidate that does stuff from the get-go, faces stuff like Hurricane Sandy, or something else and comes out of that...against someone like Feinstein,...c'mon now.

Washington knowledge is helpful, but what's the point if that knowledge is just used to pander to those "Very Serious People"?


Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2014, 12:57:01 AM »

I like John Kasich for this reason. Long service in Congress, but got out whilst the getting was good and thus no ties to Bush in that regard since he was in the private sector and media (Fox News) before returning as Governor winning a close election against a strong incumbent and then getting reelected in a landslide.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2014, 01:42:27 AM »
« Edited: December 06, 2014, 06:33:01 PM by pbrower2a »

Most relevant:

1. (tie) US Senator or State governor. Ten points each.
3. (tie) Vice-President of the United States or 5-star general or admiral of a successfully-completed war. Eight points.
5. Mayor, city larger than 500,000. Six points.
6. Member of the US House of Representatives, two points per term up to six points. Add two for Speaker of the House.
7. Cabinet member -- Secretary of State (4), Defense (3), or Treasury (2). Any others -- one point.  
8. Spouse of a former President of the United Stats (First Lady). Three points.
9. Ambassador to the United Nations, China, Russia, or India. CIA director.  Two points.

All else is irrelevant.

I'll give my choice for who should have been President at one time -- John Voinovich. 26 points.

Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2014, 02:13:43 AM »

Experience, in my belief, is executive leadership, familiarity with the issues, and matching the mood of the times.

Ronald Reagan, at the time of his 1980 election, would be my gold standard. He not only had first hand with the issues, dating back to 1964, but he additionally served as a major state governor. He became an experienced executive by the time he left the California governorship, and combined with his mastery of the issues, he managed to dominate the country politically in the 1980s. If an issue in the 1980s wasn't dealt with, it was frankly because Reagan didn't care about it or didn't believe in dealing with it on a federal level.

Bill Clinton comes in second after Reagan. Arkansas governor for (a combined) 12 years, fit the neoliberal 1990s, and managed to achieve a good deal. His understanding of the mood of the 1990s was invaluable. Another President might have tried to push it too far one way or the other. His centrism allowed him to ride the 1990s.

George W. Bush had considerable executive experience but had only a passing familiarity with the issues facing the United States. Consequently, Bush had a far less successful presidency than Bill Clinton. A lot of executive experience, but little familiarity with the issues. One might say had he had Reagan's grasp of major issues or Clinton's intellect, he would have avoided many of the issues, like Iraq.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2014, 07:09:16 AM »

Whether they've been an executive or a legislator, I think the candidate has to have had some substantive experience both 1.) crafting good legislation that meets the complex demands of particular issues and 2.) negotiating with other parties who have various interests.  I'm sorry to say that Obama's presidency has convinced me of this--or maybe I thought he had enough experience when he first ran, and I was proven wrong.
Logged
Vega
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,253
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2014, 09:37:43 PM »

So say this man is a candidate for President, he has the following resume...

Elected at age 24 to a city council which is responsible for a city of 500,000+. Serves a 2 year term.

Elected at age 26 to the State House, serves a total of 4 years.

Elected at age 30 to the State Senate, serves a total of 2 years

Elected at age 32 to be Governor of a small state - about 1 million people. Serves one four year term.

Appointed after he leaves as Governor (age 36) to be Secretary of Energy, he's very popular at the job.

Leaves cabinet post to run for Senate, elected twice, and 1 year into his second term as Senator... runs for President.

Would that be enough experience? Or not?
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2014, 01:21:59 AM »

@SilentCal: And yet look at Buchanan vs Lincoln?

Or the races of 1920 and 2008 in which a junior Senator got elected over a far more experienced opponent.

In the case of 2008,it's been a better result.

In the case of 1920, in which a two-term Governor with executive experience AND a Roosevelt running mate lost to an unremarkable Senator, with little on the plate.

Or yes, 1992 in which Clinton beat Bush even though Bush had more positions. Ultimately Clinton had a lot to do in Arkansas while Bush was a mere insider.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2014, 12:39:25 PM »

Experience, in my belief, is executive leadership, familiarity with the issues, and matching the mood of the times.

Ronald Reagan, at the time of his 1980 election, would be my gold standard. He not only had first hand with the issues, dating back to 1964, but he additionally served as a major state governor. He became an experienced executive by the time he left the California governorship, and combined with his mastery of the issues, he managed to dominate the country politically in the 1980s. If an issue in the 1980s wasn't dealt with, it was frankly because Reagan didn't care about it or didn't believe in dealing with it on a federal level.

Bill Clinton comes in second after Reagan. Arkansas governor for (a combined) 12 years, fit the neoliberal 1990s, and managed to achieve a good deal. His understanding of the mood of the 1990s was invaluable. Another President might have tried to push it too far one way or the other. His centrism allowed him to ride the 1990s.

George W. Bush had considerable executive experience but had only a passing familiarity with the issues facing the United States. Consequently, Bush had a far less successful presidency than Bill Clinton. A lot of executive experience, but little familiarity with the issues. One might say had he had Reagan's grasp of major issues or Clinton's intellect, he would have avoided many of the issues, like Iraq.

Dubya fit the mood of the time -- one in which people were concerned only with the more primal drives of life or with theological fears. We know how that turned out. Dubya had good intentions in promoting a real estate boom; good intentions are not enough.  

...My scale says nothing about quality aside from saying that someone who does certain things has done a few things right to be President. Joe Biden would get 16 points, yet few would want him to be elected President. He has had plenty of chances.

"Mayor of a large city" does not distinguish between being Mayor of Detroit and turning it around (should that ever happen) and being Mayor of Hempstead, New York (it really is that big -- and if you have never heard of it it is because you do not live on Long Island; it does not pass my spell-check) and doing nothing remarkable. Indeed, being mayor of Lima, Ohio (a real dump) and turning it around should matter more than being mayor of Plano, Texas. Of course, being the mayor of a small city and performing miracles might lead to the Governorship of a State or to the US Senate through the House of Representatives.

We have never elected the mayor of a giant city directly to the Presidency; our last opportunity was Rudy Giuliani.    

I limited experience in the House because although having experience in both the House and Senate is richer preparation for the Presidency, being a perennial winner of a safe seat is not.

First Lady? Would Eleanore Roosevelt have been a good President? Maybe. But who better knows the intricacies of the White House -- and I don't mean where the drapery hardware sags.    
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2014, 01:57:10 PM »

The ideal for me is some mix of executive experience and knowledge of Washington.

This, and that would include private sector executive experience.

Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2014, 02:02:17 PM »

I don't think it matters at all.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2014, 02:30:59 PM »
« Edited: December 03, 2014, 02:38:44 PM by Mehmentum »

For the most part, I don't think it matters.  A competent candidate will be able to surround themselves with knowledgeable and experienced people.

Obviously, there are some cases where experience does matter.  Someone with no experience in public office would leave me with doubts. However, the majority of presidential candidates don't fall into that category (off the top of my head Carson's the only one who would qualify in the 2016 field).  
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2014, 03:34:15 PM »

I do not vote on experience. I would vote for Ben Carson if he had similar beliefs to the Pauls or Gary Johnson.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2014, 03:57:57 PM »

To me, military service is important.  Neither Clinton, Bush the Younger, nor Obama has had any.  (Well, Bush had a pseudo-military experience which he never showed up for, but not much.)  As a result, none of them appreciate sending men into battle.  All of them showed a willingness to involve the US in foreign entanglements.  I think a man who has crawled under barbed wire while dodging enemy fire, or has had to order men to their deaths, would be much less likely to take us into the fog of war.  This was in particular evidence when Colin Powell was the most reluctant of Team Bush when it came to the invasion of Iraq. 

It is also evident to me that chief executive experience is helpful for gauging a presidential candidate.  Bush, for example, had a miserable business record in the private sector.  It should come as no surprise that he left us in such poor economic shape.  Obama's executive experience is limited to that of a community organizer, so it should come as no surprise that he has not been able to keep his own campaign promises.  Clinton, on the other hand, came from a strong governorship (Arkansas' Governor having much more executive authority than Texas') and had also been the attorney general of the state of Arkansas.  Clinton left us with a budget surplus.

Another experience that I find helpful in gauging a presidential candidate is that of making one's way in the world from humble beginnings.  This is not necessary, and we have had a number of excellent presidents who came from aristocratic, wealthy, slaveholding, landed families, but I regard it as an experience that makes sense to me.  Nixon, for example, as well as Lincoln and Reagan all had relatively humble origins.  They were all re-elected as President and they all contributed long-lasting effects on the political culture of the United States.

Of course, there are qualities that I look for in a presidential candidate that trump all these experiential concerns, but these are the things that "experience" brings to my mind.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2014, 04:11:58 PM »

Experience for a politician is like standardized tests for a grad school applicant. She has to reach a certain level to avoid being weeded out, but beyond that it's irrelevant. E.g., no random persons off the street, or people who've never held statewide office, if even for a couple of years. That's pretty much it. Although I suppose, angus makes a good point about military experience being a plus.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2014, 04:18:39 PM »

Eisenhower had no elected experience -- but much of his military service was in lobbying for defense preparations when such was a low priority. He had to know his way around the political system.

But that is an oddity. I know of no other WWII-era military officer who would have had the unique combination of characteristics that Ike had.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2014, 10:12:11 PM »
« Edited: December 13, 2014, 02:37:10 PM by Lincoln Republican »

This individual is from a large state and a large city

Graduated from Yale University with a JD-MBA Degree

Enlisted in the United States Navy, served for three years with distinction, achieving the rank of Petty officer, first class

Worked at the State Department as a staff member in the office of the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs for two years
    
Practiced law as a senior partner at a prominent law firm for two years, noted for their knowledge, fairness, and effective court room appearances

Member of the City School Board for one term  

Member of the City Council for one term

Member of the State House for one term

Member of the State Senate for one term

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives for one term  

Lecturer in law and management at Harvard University for two years

U.S. Secretary of the Navy for two years

U.S. Secretary of State for four years  

Aawarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their accomplishments as Secretary of State

Mayor of their city, served for four years, restoring order and prosperity to the city

Elected Governor, served for four years, chosen as the best Governor in the U.S. for four straight years

Elected U.S. Senate, serving for six years, noted for their ability to work across the aisle and to get things done

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2014, 06:58:42 PM »

The ideal for me is some mix of executive experience and knowledge of Washington.

This, and that would include private sector executive experience.



It's hard to see what private-sector experience would be best. Being an assembly-line worker who gets into the union and becomes a successful politician within the union and becomes the leader of a labor union might be wonderful experience; a big union such as the Teamsters of the UAW is in practice a big business due to the budget and other responsibilities.

Most people become specialists. Would finance, marketing, engineering, advertising, research, or accounting be most relevant? In a way all of those require a high level of intelligence, but they all have their deficiencies. Significantly, much of the power of any corporate executive is the ability to fire anyone who gets in his way... so try 'firing' the leader of the opposition while President of the United States. A President with such power would be a tyrant.

Profit-and-loss experience does not well fit government. Owners of giant plantations as a rule had huge experience in profit-and-loss -- but after the Civil War how few 'planter' types have eventually became President? The closest was Jimmy Carter, who spent much time as a peanut farmer. Even if he was free from the most anti-egalitarian characteristics that one associates with Southern agrarian types he was still an awful President.

Harry Truman had a checkered record as an entrepreneur. His haberdasher shop failed, and his foray into oil was far from successful (he did not stick with what would have been a good investment long enough). He was a wonderful fit as a politician, though.

Captain of a cruise ship? Would be interesting.     
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2014, 02:54:10 PM »
« Edited: December 12, 2014, 03:13:13 PM by Lincoln Republican »

Although I believe a good combination of education, and proven and successful private and public experience is essential, when it comes right down to it, it is in the intelligence, the talent, the abilities, the dedication, and the work ethic of the individual whether or not they will succeed as a candidate and as a President.  
Logged
Vega
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,253
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2014, 03:48:34 PM »
« Edited: December 12, 2014, 03:55:18 PM by MW Rep Vega »

Indeed, Winfield. I agree completely.

How would you feel to the following resume for a candidate?

Has a J.D. in law from Yale.

Fulbright Scholar.

Enlisted in the Navy with distinction.

Elected at age 26 to the State House, serves a total of 4 years.

Elected at age 30 to the State Senate, serves a total of 2 years

Elected at age 32 to be Governor of a small state - about 1 million people. Serves one four year term.

Appointed after he leaves as Governor (age 36) to be Secretary of Energy, he's very popular at the job.

Leaves cabinet post to run for Senate, elected twice, and 1 year into his second term as Senator... runs for President.

Would that be enough experience? Or not?

I ask this specific question, as I'm writing a timeline.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2014, 03:55:25 PM »

Indeed, Winfield. I agree completely.

How would you feel to the following resume for a candidate?

Has a J.D. in law from Yale.

Fulbright Scholar. 

Elected at age 26 to the State House, serves a total of 4 years.

Elected at age 30 to the State Senate, serves a total of 2 years

Elected at age 32 to be Governor of a small state - about 1 million people. Serves one four year term.

Appointed after he leaves as Governor (age 36) to be Secretary of Energy, he's very popular at the job.

Leaves cabinet post to run for Senate, elected twice, and 1 year into his second term as Senator... runs for President.

Would that be enough experience? Or not?

I ask this specific question, as I'm writing a timeline.

He was doing fine until he accepted the Secretary of Energy position and became a Washington Insider.

Some things I would add:

Tall, 6'3
Good looking
White
Married to his high school sweetheart
Has two daughters and a son
Logged
Vega
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,253
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2014, 03:59:56 PM »

Thank you, Beet.

One more thing, our fictional 6'3 family man who's just been elected to his second term manages to become Majority Leader, that would help with name recognition etc.

I think it's important for him to be Secretary of Energy, it's under a popular President. It sets up his bid for U.S. Senate.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2014, 04:05:15 PM »

Possibly it could work, IMO, if you shift Secretary of Energy before his governorship. Bill Richardson and Andrew Cuomo pulled off similar moves. A Cabinet official needs elected experience as a must, to run for president. An elected official doesn't need to be in the Cabinet, bar extraordinary circumstances (Hillary, etc.). But that's just my opinion.
Logged
Vega
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,253
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2014, 04:08:28 PM »

Possibly it could work, IMO, if you shift Secretary of Energy before his governorship. Bill Richardson and Andrew Cuomo pulled off similar moves. A Cabinet official needs elected experience as a must, to run for president. An elected official doesn't need to be in the Cabinet, bar extraordinary circumstances (Hillary, etc.). But that's just my opinion.

Thank you, I'll keep that in consideration. The state I thought he could originate from is Hawaii, where he deals with an energy crisis, which would then make him attractive to the President for Energy sec.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 12 queries.