What is the best launching pad for the Presidency? (best state & best job)

[Blue3]

Every politician usually starts from where they're from, or where they moved early in their adult life. And they don't usually think in terms of best launching pad for the presidency, even if they do have vague presidential ambitions when young, I would think.

Bill & Hillary Clinton decided, very intentionally, to move to New York. And Hillary chose to not run for Governor or the House, or start smaller, but to go to the Senate as the launching pad. And she really did listen to, serve, and work hard for New Yorkers as their Senator.

But my point is, it seemed Bill & Hillary thought that, if you could pick to be Governor or Senator or Representative of something else from any single state in the country, that the Senator of New York was the best elected position to be. And it makes sense: you have the New York media and businesses and international status, probably the most important city in the world, able to build connections with some of the most influential people in the world, while at the same time learning how to represent the large areas of rural and suburban voters throughout the rest of the state. And Senator probably because you have more power and oversight and flexibility and visibility than a Representative, as well as already being in the thick of national politics. I can see how it makes sense.

Now, I know Hillary wasn't able to win the presidency even if she did win the popular vote, but she didn't lose the EV because she was the (former) Senator of New York.

What is the best launching pad for the Presidency?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, 4 NY governors were elected President.

[Young Conservative]

IN modern america? To win the Gop primary, logically Texas Governor. To win the Democratic primary, logically California governor. TO win the national election? Popular governor of Florida.

[Blue3]

Why Governor?

Why not Senator?

[eric82oslo]

IN modern america? To win the Gop primary, logically Texas Governor. To win the Democratic primary, logically California governor. TO win the national election? Popular governor of Florida.

Exactly this

Agreed. Thread closed lol.

[Kingpoleon]

6+ years in Congress, 4+ years as executive of a large state/city(any city in the top 20, meaning 680,000 or more; any state with over eight million people, meaning the top 12).

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Right now, if you're going on one single job, probably Governor of Florida. Important, large swing state with a large and highly diverse population.

I'd say the ideal candidate would have all three of the following:

1. experience as a United States Senator

2. experience as a governor, preferably a swing state or a state with a large population

3. 10+ years of experience working a real job in the private sector (in other words, something in the private sector where they actually had to work, not some cushy Goldman Sachs or lobbyist deal, but instead something like working at McDonald's, plumbing, or selling cars). Bonus points if the job is a union job. Preferably some experience as a manager but also significant experience at the entry level.

Preference for short amounts of experience as senator and governor - only one to two terms a piece to limit the amount of controversial votes/sound bites to be exploited by opponents.

No executive branch experience at the federal level. You would run the risk of being labeled as a relic of the (president at the time you worked there) administration and not ready to take on today's challenges. Vice President is a possible exception as long as you run for the term immediately following your last term as Vice President.

Good luck finding someone with all three, really. Only two recent presidents I can think of that have two of these qualifications are Bill Clinton (I think) and Ronald Reagan.

[Xing]

Being a loud, boorish asshole seems to be the best way now.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hosting the Apprentice apparently

[Mister Mets]

Keep in mind Hillary ran for Senator in New York because there was an opening for the office. A popular Republican Governor was in his second of three terms, so that seat wasn't available.

I think Obama and W might represent the ideal launching pads for their parties, in terms of getting elected.

A Senator from Illinois with 4-8 years in the office can have a liberal record in a state next to Iowa, while also representing midwestern appeal useful in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, as well as benefiting from the Chicago media market. Democrats believe in national government, so they have a preference for members of Congress.

A Governor from Texas has credibility due to the size of the state, and appeal to Southern and Western voters, while the power of the state legislature provides some plausible deniability for any controversial developments. Republicans believe in states rights and laboratories of democracy, so they have a preference for executives.

[SingingAnalyst]

Ohio and governor.

[progressive85]

I'd say more so foreign affairs than being a governor.  I really thought having been Secretary of State should have been a huge boost to Hillary.  I guess it depends on the year and the election.  People always want change, but if things were more stable and the country less divided, I think SoS would be a good pre-job to the Presidency.  That or Secretary of Defense.  I say this because the President is commander-in-chief and the nation's spokesperson and that job requires knowing everything about the world because the United States is a world superpower.

Strangely enough, Secretaries of State and Defense don't run for the Presidency usually, Hillary was an exception.

Governor more so than a Senator or a Congressperson.  Governor of a swing state, but California in particular for a Democrat...  oddly I don't recall a Democratic President that came from California.

I don't view being a Senator to be the best at all, even though a lot of them see Presidents when they look in the mirror.

I'd also rather vote for someone with military or foreign experience, such as humanitarian work overseas, Peace Corps, computer work for the Pentagon...  I think too many of our presidents lack that experience, which explains maybe why they don't make the best decisions about war.