Governors or Senators?

[LastMcGovernite]

I'm just curious...

If you had a governor and a senator who had been in politics for equal length of time, had equal rhetorical skills, and had precisely similar stances on the issues, who would you choose?

That is to say, do you put a premium on the executive management and budget-balancing that falls in a governor's province?  Or is it more important to have experience dealing with the U.S. Congress, grappling with issues of national significance, and engaging in substantive foreign policy concerns?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'd much rather have a Senator as opposed to a Governor.  Foreign policy is what matters to me, and Senators are more likely to have experience versus a Governor.

[Purple State]

Senator, as they would be more aware of foreign policy, as ben said, and they would be more aware of the federal legislative process and would be able to capitalize on preexisting relationships in Congress.

[Franzl]

Senator, for the reasons already mentioned.

[pogo stick]

Governors. They have more executive experience and are likely less corrupt as they have term limits

[TeePee4Prez]

Senator.  I get the feeling most Dems will vote Senator and most Republicans will vote Governor.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Both.

[Purple State]

Senator.  I get the feeling most Dems will vote Senator and most Republicans will vote Governor.

Why is that? And JewishConservative is far from representative of the actual GOP.

[MasterJedi]

Governor. They're theoretically more likely to know how to run the government since they should have the ability to do it at a smaller level. Though having been both at one time or another would be best.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Governor.....our best Presidents have been Governors

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Senator.  I get the feeling most Dems will vote Senator and most Republicans will vote Governor.

This far your prediction has been rather accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't recall Lincoln, Washington, or Jefferson ever being Governors, but then they were never Senators either. 

[Jacobtm]

Senator.  I get the feeling most Dems will vote Senator and most Republicans will vote Governor.

This far your prediction has been rather accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't recall Lincoln, Washington, or Jefferson ever being Governors, but then they were never Senators either. 

Jefferson was the Governor of Virginia. He was also state legislator, congressman, minister to France, Secretary of State, so he had some experience.

[Zarn]

Washington was the head of the Continental army. That's administration experience, even if it was not civilian administration.

I chose governor.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't recall Lincoln, Washington, or Jefferson ever being Governors, but then they were never Senators either. 

My two favs are Theodore Roosevelt and Reagan.

But also, FDR, Carter, Clinton, and W in recent times.

Interesting how since TR the trend has been to elect Governors.  There were a handful before TR but since his presidency governors are looked upon more favorably it seems.

[JSojourner]

Senator, as they would be more aware of foreign policy, as ben said, and they would be more aware of the federal legislative process and would be able to capitalize on preexisting relationships in Congress.

This.

Plus, Governor-Presidents in my lifetime have largely left me unimpressed.  The Decider, Clinton, Reagan, Carter...

[LastMcGovernite]

Senator, as they would be more aware of foreign policy, as ben said, and they would be more aware of the federal legislative process and would be able to capitalize on preexisting relationships in Congress.

This.

Plus, Governor-Presidents in my lifetime have largely left me unimpressed.  The Decider, Clinton, Reagan, Carter...

Yes!  I would be more likely to believe the argument that governors made good executive managers, if our recent ex-governors did not have serious flaws in this category.  Reagan and Bush 43 delegated far, far too much, often to subordinates who were not in the least trustworthy, while Carter micromanaged to the point of being in charge of the White House tennis courts.  Clinton ran the White House with utter entropy and chaos. 

Meanwhile, Ford, Bush 41, LBJ, and so far Obama (all congressmen or senators), have run the White House with clear lines of authority and found a workable balance between doing too much and doing too little. 

As others say, the learning curve for foreign policy is so steep, that I would have reservations with putting even a talented governor at the helm.  Trade agreements with foreign countries and even running the Olympics is no substitute for having to be briefed on wars or serving time on the Armed Services or Foreign Relations committee.

[tmthforu94]

I would rather be a Senator.
You won't be blamed if your state is a horrible state. I don't think it's as difficult, either. You share the job with another Senator, so you don't take all the heat from your state.

[Vepres]

Governor, though I don't care too much.  A Governor has to balance a budget, deal with a legislature, actually has to get things done instead of just voting.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Governor.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

A governor, for the executive experience.  Although my plan to become President is to do so after being a Senator, so we'll see.

[Mechaman]

I would rather be a Senator.
You won't be blamed if your state is a horrible state. I don't think it's as difficult, either. You share the job with another Senator, so you don't take all the heat from your state.

Senator, as they would be more aware of foreign policy, as ben said, and they would be more aware of the federal legislative process and would be able to capitalize on preexisting relationships in Congress.

This.

Plus, Governor-Presidents in my lifetime have largely left me unimpressed.  The Decider, Clinton, Reagan, Carter...

Yes!  I would be more likely to believe the argument that governors made good executive managers, if our recent ex-governors did not have serious flaws in this category.  Reagan and Bush 43 delegated far, far too much, often to suborindates who were not in the least trustworthy, while Carter micromanaged to the point of being in charge of the White House tennis courts.  Clinton ran the White House with utter entropy and chaos. 

Meanwhile, Ford, Bush 41, LBJ, and so far Obama (all congressmen or senators), have run the White House with clear lines of authority and found a workable balance between doing too much and doing too little. 

As others say, the learning curve for foreign policy is so steep, that I would have reservations with putting even a talented governor at the helm.  Trade agreements with foreign countries and even running the Olympics is no substitute for having to be briefed on wars or serving time on the Armed Services or Foreign Relations committee.

I have to agree with the previous statements.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ideally, someone who spent time as both.  That said, our government has grown so large you need a President who can delegate and pick good people to delegate to.  The odds of getting a polymath who can do everything well are exceedingly slim.  Maybe we should rethink having a single chief executive.

President of Defense and Foreign Affairs.
President of Economic Affairs.
President of Justice and Administration.

[SPC]

since i would prefer that the president literally be the governor, i'd say governor.