Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last election, at a time when the econmy was the main issue, we had a choice of two Senators (three actually) with no real experience running anything. My contention is the time you put in, in the Senate and the House, may make you a person with subject matter expertise (committee you serve on) but it doesn't give you any kind of budget balancing, managerial/executive or implementation skills, whatsoever, unless the job you had before you went into the House/Senate was a governor/mayor/businessman/charity head. Plus, when these Senate and House Guys (meant non-gender specifically) become President, do they tend to surround themselves with doers or more ideas people/lawyers?
Within your own party, does type of experience matter? Do you think new Presidents with private or government managerial/executive experience somewhere in their past, do a better job of hitting the ground running when they become President?
This is a recurring theme, and in general, I think that the experience gained as a Governor outweighs that of a Senator ... and I would not seriously consider anyone coming out of the House. At least Senators and Governors are elected in state-wide elections; Congressman are not.
However, there are exceptions. In last year's election, we were going to end up with a President coming out of the Senate. Had either the Democrats or Republicans selected a Governor, I believe that person could possibly have made the argument that they had better experience to prepare them for the Oval Office.
That said, Governors (like Senators) are not all the same. They don't bring the same qualifications to the office of Governor, the number and scope of the problems they deal with as Governor are not the same, and frankly, there are and have been Governors who, once in office, demonstrate that they are in WAY over their heads. The very last thing that should happen is that their poor performance on a state level is rewarded by giving them the chance to screw things up on a national scale.
To me, depending on the specific individuals involved, an individual Senator may acquire more experience relevant to being a President than an individual Governor would, but that would be an exception.
From a historical point of view the answer is a rather mixed bag and as far as this forum is concerned more a matter of partisan opinion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
