Who is basically more capable of being a proficient president?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:53:44 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Who is basically more capable of being a proficient president?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Who is basically more capable of being a proficient president?
#1
a U.S. senator
#2
a governor
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Who is basically more capable of being a proficient president?  (Read 1706 times)
sportydude
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 589


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 07, 2016, 05:37:47 AM »

The hot-button issue that led to Christie's quasi-victory.

On one side, governors know how to govern and how to assume responsibility.
On the other side, U.S. senators are more versed in nationwide and international issues.
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2016, 12:45:56 PM »

The hot-button issue that led to Christie's quasi-victory.

On one side, governors know how to govern and how to assume responsibility.
On the other side, U.S. senators are more versed in nationwide and international issues.
I'd say governor, same type of job. Nationwide and international issues are why Presidents have advisors.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2016, 01:43:50 PM »

Nothing can really prepare someone for being President. It's a huge gap, even between VP and President.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,348


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2016, 06:10:49 PM »

Governor
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,115
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2016, 08:09:51 AM »

Easily governor.
Logged
P123
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 326


Political Matrix
E: 3.64, S: 3.20

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2016, 04:53:11 PM »

Neither particularly. For example, Abraham Lincoln was a congressmen and we would all agree he was one of our best presidents. However, if having to chose between the two I would lean towards Governor (based on executive experience), but it really depends on the person.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2016, 07:03:18 PM »

Depends on the state from which the Governor came from: A California, Texas, Florida, or New York governor with the huge economies to deal with would probably have the edge over Senators who lack  executive experience.

On the other hand, a Senator with the large-scale operations would probably have an advantage over a West Virginia or Wyoming governor.

Toss-up.
Logged
Taco Truck 🚚
Schadenfreude
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 958
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2016, 07:10:01 PM »

Sara Palin was a governor.

Senior senator with experience on committees handling foreign affairs, budget, and healthcare gets my vote over one term governor of Wyoming all things being equal.  No contest.

So it really depends.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,604


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2016, 07:12:24 PM »

On average, a Governor. I would take a Senator who had significant experience in dealing with global affairs over a Governor of a small state, though.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2016, 07:27:15 PM »

A Senator, obviously.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2016, 08:30:42 PM »

Depends on the individual. I'm not really sure if either is inherently more preparatory than the other.
Logged
pho
iheartpho
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 852
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -1.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2016, 02:42:56 PM »

The whole "Governor's make better Presidents" argument is kind of hamstrung by the fact that Obama was the first Senator to be elected President since JFK. The sample size of Senators turned President to date is exactly two men in 56 years, and one of them only served one half of one term.

I would call it inconclusive. For whatever it's worth (not much), Obama has been a better President objectively than either of the Governor's who proceeded him.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2016, 03:15:07 PM »

The whole "Governor's make better Presidents" argument is kind of hamstrung by the fact that Obama was the first Senator to be elected President since JFK. The sample size of Senators turned President to date is exactly two men in 56 years, and one of them only served one half of one term.

I would call it inconclusive. For whatever it's worth (not much), Obama has been a better President objectively than either of the Governor's who proceeded him.

I'm not sure how Obama is objectively better than Clinton.
Logged
Taco Truck 🚚
Schadenfreude
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 958
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2016, 07:28:39 PM »

The whole "Governor's make better Presidents" argument is kind of hamstrung by the fact that Obama was the first Senator to be elected President since JFK. The sample size of Senators turned President to date is exactly two men in 56 years, and one of them only served one half of one term.

I would call it inconclusive. For whatever it's worth (not much), Obama has been a better President objectively than either of the Governor's who proceeded him.

I'm not sure how Obama is objectively better than Clinton.

Better husband.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2016, 09:18:59 PM »

The whole "Governor's make better Presidents" argument is kind of hamstrung by the fact that Obama was the first Senator to be elected President since JFK. The sample size of Senators turned President to date is exactly two men in 56 years, and one of them only served one half of one term.

I would call it inconclusive. For whatever it's worth (not much), Obama has been a better President objectively than either of the Governor's who proceeded him.

I'm not sure how Obama is objectively better than Clinton.

Better husband.

Okay, let me rephrase that. I'm not sure how Obama is an objectively better President than Clinton. Tongue
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2016, 10:22:04 PM »

Depends on the state from which the Governor came from: A California, Texas, Florida, or New York governor with the huge economies to deal with would probably have the edge over Senators who lack  executive experience.

On the other hand, a Senator with the large-scale operations would probably have an advantage over a West Virginia or Wyoming governor.

Toss-up.
I'm not sure I buy it.

In a small state, such as mine in Rhode Island, the state officials are much more grounded and knowledgeable about what's going on at the local/family/individual because of its smaller size and therefore more likely to make targeted policies that actually work (as well as actually getting to know the entire state).

Whereas in a bigger state you're more disconnected, which would be true for the Presidency but it's a weakness and something Presidents always have to fight, to learn how to stay connected to the ground level while in elected office.
Logged
pho
iheartpho
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 852
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -1.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2016, 03:05:54 PM »

The whole "Governor's make better Presidents" argument is kind of hamstrung by the fact that Obama was the first Senator to be elected President since JFK. The sample size of Senators turned President to date is exactly two men in 56 years, and one of them only served one half of one term.

I would call it inconclusive. For whatever it's worth (not much), Obama has been a better President objectively than either of the Governor's who proceeded him.

I'm not sure how Obama is objectively better than Clinton.

Obama was able to pass his health care plan for starters. Obama has also been much better than Clinton at defending his agenda from a hostile opposition party that controls both houses. I don't expect Obama to be signing a DOMA type bill because "well, they could have passed worse".
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2016, 05:09:19 AM »

Probably Governors. (My current Atlasian job notwithstanding. Tongue)

Yes, an important job of the President is foreign policy, and while Senators know about that more than Governors, they don't really have the experience to make foreign policy decisions as the President. The buck has never stopped with them.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2016, 07:00:51 PM »

The whole "Governor's make better Presidents" argument is kind of hamstrung by the fact that Obama was the first Senator to be elected President since JFK. The sample size of Senators turned President to date is exactly two men in 56 years, and one of them only served one half of one term.

I would call it inconclusive. For whatever it's worth (not much), Obama has been a better President objectively than either of the Governor's who proceeded him.
Johnson had been a Senator.
Logged
Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends
Anton Kreitzer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
Australia


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: 3.11

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2016, 11:35:23 AM »

Generally Governors, mainly for their executive experience.
Logged
Why
Unbiased
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 612
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2016, 08:50:09 PM »

Being president is an impossible job, nothing prepares anyone for it, all presidents have been terrible.
Logged
James Bond 007
Rookie
**
Posts: 156
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2016, 02:29:13 AM »

Governors know how to govern which is what a president does.  Senators are meant to stall and delay things in a cautious manner so without experience governing a state, very major city as mayor, or president or CEO of a large corporation, there really isn't a place for you in the White House.  For example, a kid who runs basically unopposed for a senate seat who decides two years later that they should be the most powerful person in the world, shouldn't be taken seriously.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,576
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2016, 05:21:53 AM »

A governor. He is a chief executive and has to govern.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.063 seconds with 14 queries.