If someone campaigns for high office as "insider"

[President Johnson]

Many candidates for president, governor or the senate campaign as "outsider", often pointing to experience outside politics such as business career, military service, law profession etc.. What if someone with charisma (and that's important regardless) campaigns as an insider, who knows how the system works and gets stuff done? I mean, when we go the doctor, a lawyer or a plumber, we actually want someone who has experience and knows how the get job done. Nobody would hire a CEO of even a medium size business who is an "outsider".

For example, LBJ got civil rights laws passed because he knew members of congress very well. Because he was the ultimate insider. Jerry Brown, another example, fixed California's budget what oustider Arnold Schwarzenegger could not do.

Some may argue now that "insider" has a toxic label, but Donald Trump proved that you can change such definitions in people's minds. All you need is charisma and persuasion.

I think part of the problem of politics is that we want someone who is "just like us". But that's actually not always helpful, because success depends on comptence or at least hiring competent people, and some persuation.

Thoughts?

[DPKdebator]

Campaigning as an "outsider" is considered an argument that said candidate will be able to bring some sort of new perspective into the way the government is run. This appeals to people since Congress is generally seen in a negative light, so campaigning as an "insider" might backfire because the candidate's opponent might try to tie them (rightfully or wrongfully) to problems such as Congressional gridlock- people might end up seeing the candidate as a face to blame for issues like that considering they tend to like their own Congressman/woman.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I disagree in Brown fixing CA budget crises as if you look at CA history for the past 40 years it has followed the same cycle

Late 70s and early 80s  : CA has large budget deficits and problem seems too big to solve

Rest of the 80s : Economy booms and booms more in California than in any other state so the deficit is wiped out and George Deukmijian gets credited for it

Early 90s  : The early 90s recession  and the closing of many military bases(due to end of Cold War )leads to the state having the worst economy in the nation and having large deficits and another seemingly unfixable Budget Crise

Rest of 90s : Economy booms and booms more in CA than it does in the rest of the country so the budget deficit gets wiped out

Early 2000 : California once again is hit by it more than any other state in the nation which creates a budget crises and due to that people elect Arnold as Governor


Mid 2000s : California and the nation economy gores so deficit gets smaller

Late 2000s early 2010s : Great Recession hits CA worse than any other state which nearly bankrupts CA

Rest of 2010s(so far) : California economy grows faster than rest of nation which causes their budget crises to be solved



To really see if their budget situation is solved I think we may have to wait to see how next recession affects them . If it once again hits them worse than any other state I think we can say it’s not been solved in the long run

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Insider? I hardly knew her!

[President Johnson]

I disagree in Brown fixing CA budget crises as if you look at CA history for the past 40 years it has followed the same cycle

Late 70s and early 80s  : CA has large budget deficits and problem seems too big to solve

Rest of the 80s : Economy booms and booms more in California than in any other state so the deficit is wiped out and George Deukmijian gets credited for it

Early 90s  : The early 90s recession  and the closing of many military bases(due to end of Cold War )leads to the state having the worst economy in the nation and having large deficits and another seemingly unfixable Budget Crise

Rest of 90s : Economy booms and booms more in CA than it does in the rest of the country so the budget deficit gets wiped out

Early 2000 : California once again is hit by it more than any other state in the nation which creates a budget crises and due to that people elect Arnold as Governor


Mid 2000s : California and the nation economy gores so deficit gets smaller

Late 2000s early 2010s : Great Recession hits CA worse than any other state which nearly bankrupts CA

Rest of 2010s(so far) : California economy grows faster than rest of nation which causes their budget crises to be solved



To really see if their budget situation is solved I think we may have to wait to see how next recession affects them . If it once again hits them worse than any other state I think we can say it’s not been solved in the long run

Of course the improving economy played a big role, but that expansion happend while Obama was president and Brown was governor. Brown also got a small sales tax hike and a tax increase for the wealthy in 2012 through a ballot initiative. In additon, he blocked some spending demands from his own party to save money and set up rainy day fund. In a recession, deficts are not so bad if you later (or in advance) pay for them through saving money from the good times. That's also the reason why the Trump tax cuts are vodoo economics. Really sad Brown is 80 years old, because he'd make a very competent president.

Campaigning as an "outsider" is considered an argument that said candidate will be able to bring some sort of new perspective into the way the government is run. This appeals to people since Congress is generally seen in a negative light, so campaigning as an "insider" might backfire because the candidate's opponent might try to tie them (rightfully or wrongfully) to problems such as Congressional gridlock- people might end up seeing the candidate as a face to blame for issues like that considering they tend to like their own Congressman/woman.

I think that also depends on which party is in power. Blaming the minority is always more difficult, even if they block policies through the filibuster.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I disagree in Brown fixing CA budget crises as if you look at CA history for the past 40 years it has followed the same cycle

Late 70s and early 80s  : CA has large budget deficits and problem seems too big to solve

Rest of the 80s : Economy booms and booms more in California than in any other state so the deficit is wiped out and George Deukmijian gets credited for it

Early 90s  : The early 90s recession  and the closing of many military bases(due to end of Cold War )leads to the state having the worst economy in the nation and having large deficits and another seemingly unfixable Budget Crise

Rest of 90s : Economy booms and booms more in CA than it does in the rest of the country so the budget deficit gets wiped out

Early 2000 : California once again is hit by it more than any other state in the nation which creates a budget crises and due to that people elect Arnold as Governor


Mid 2000s : California and the nation economy gores so deficit gets smaller

Late 2000s early 2010s : Great Recession hits CA worse than any other state which nearly bankrupts CA

Rest of 2010s(so far) : California economy grows faster than rest of nation which causes their budget crises to be solved



To really see if their budget situation is solved I think we may have to wait to see how next recession affects them . If it once again hits them worse than any other state I think we can say it’s not been solved in the long run

Of course the improving economy played a big role, but that expansion happend while Obama was president and Brown was governor. Brown also got a small sales tax hike and a tax increase for the wealthy in 2012 through a ballot initiative. In additon, he blocked some spending demands from his own party to save money and set up rainy day fund. In a recession, deficts are not so bad if you later (or in advance) pay for them through saving money from the good times. That's also the reason why the Trump tax cuts are vodoo economics. Really sad Brown is 80 years old, because he'd make a very competent president.

Campaigning as an "outsider" is considered an argument that said candidate will be able to bring some sort of new perspective into the way the government is run. This appeals to people since Congress is generally seen in a negative light, so campaigning as an "insider" might backfire because the candidate's opponent might try to tie them (rightfully or wrongfully) to problems such as Congressional gridlock- people might end up seeing the candidate as a face to blame for issues like that considering they tend to like their own Congressman/woman.

I think that also depends on which party is in power. Blaming the minority is always more difficult, even if they block policies through the filibuster.

Well I think we need to wait and see because California during good economic times always seems to have solved their budget crises but during bad times they usually have budget crises worse than any other state

I’m just not talking about a deficit because during bad economic times that always happens but the fact is CA usually  a worse budget crises during it than any other state (they nearly went bankrupt in 09 I believe ).

So we need to wait and see during the next recession and if their budget situation is like every other state or better than I would say they have solved it , if it’s worse again than now they haven’t