In a presidential candidate, what is experience to you?

[Mr. Smith]

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"?

[Mr. Smith]

@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.