If experience counts when picking a president why do voters pick Governors

[bigdarryl]

We had Roosevelt Carter Reagan Clinton GW Bush all Ran as sitting Governors and won. The thing no one brings up is the fact that 1960 was the last senator who won the White House

[saltpoint]

1. We've had plenty of governors, but there haven't even been 50 presidents yet.

It's not a big enough sample to draw reliable, predictable, replicatable trends.

And this year, for example, there's a chance that neither major party candidate will have served as a governor. Let's say it's Thompson (yuck) and any of our people except Richardson. Kucinich is a Congressman and all the rest are Senators/former Senators. And the trends are looking blue rather than red.

[havocmom]

2. Being a governor, the chief executive of a state, IS experience

Being a good Senator does not mean someone would be a good president. Governors are closer to the job type.

We need our DEM Senators to stay in the Senate. Pick a presidential candidate from out of the Beltway zone.

[bigdarryl]

6. the problem is none of the curent Governors wanted to ru with Hillary in the race the funny...

thing is she's only been in the senate for six years her claim to fame is she's married to Bill Clinton.

[wyldwolf]

7. no, YOU think her claim to fame is being married to Bill Clinton.

[havocmom]

10. him and a LOT of other people

Why do HRC supports tend to be so bloody rude? If there was less shoving down throats, people might be more amenable. That pushy thing is probably one of her biggest liability, and it really isn't her as much as her supporters.

[wyldwolf]

12. Like who?

[havocmom]

14. For starters. people who try to marginalize others who don't share their opinions

or talking points.

[wyldwolf]

16. so they're the ones who believe her claim to fame is being married to Bill Clinton?

:shrug:

Who?

[havocmom]

18. LOL

got logic?

Didn't think so

Hey, have a great week barking up trees you don't want to climb

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[havocmom]

8. Yes, the field is not what I would like to see

But you can't have my Gov just yet. So many GOP years have really messed up Montana. Will take some more time to get headed in a better direction.

You can have him for Pres in a few more years, and he will do a damned fine job too.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Governors have no experience with foreign policy (except for Richardson)--

whoever wins the Presidency needs to have a full understanding of the Middle East situation, and of military matters. This time around, Senators will prevail, I predict. They are well-briefed on these matters.

[havocmom]

23. Actually, many do. US governors have to promote their state's products

Oft times, that involves a lot of foreign partnerships and connections. Those governors have to stay up on laws, policies, foreign political groups and such.

They may be short on MILITARY insight, but many have a lot of foreign policy dealings.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Well, so far the Repub gov candidates this year seem pretty clueless, so

I don't put much stock in their "experience"--I remember Chimpy's touted foreign credentials as governor, they consisted of: Viva Mexico!! Look where THAT got us.

[havocmom]

26. Republican governors are clueless because the GOP thwarts thinking

Look to some DEM governors and you will see some very capable executives. MT governor, Brian Schweitzer is healing a lot of GOP inflicted wounds and damage in MT while he moves us forward to solving a lot of energy problems, proving that alternative energies can and do create jobs and improve the quality of life. He has to deal with some really bad partisan Republicans in the state legislature and he came out looking great while they showed the public just how destructive and hateful a force they have been around here.

Janet Napolitano of Arizona is another DEM governor who is managing to move that state forward despite almost Neanderthal GOP legislators (my apologies to any of the GEICO Cavemen in the reading audience.) Napolitano is firm in the face of a bunch of bullies in the AZ legislature. She is tough without being a tyrant and looks to the greater good instead of constantly caving to special interests.

I'd prefer either of those two governors to our current slate of DEM candidates. But I would be willing to hold off on campaigning for either until they are ready to make the leap onto the national stage.

Fact of the matter is, Senators don't fare well in the race for the White House. The way they have to compromise to do their jobs is ALWAYS used out of context against them in a presidential race. They have to spend too much time, energy and funds on trying to put charges against them for flip-flopping into the context of the total content of bills they have voted on. They don't have time to get their message out and then they are charged with not having a message.

Governors with foreign trade experience are closer in experience than law makers are.

[TwilightGardener]

27. Governors have an EASIER time because of the lack of voting record, I agree, but

I don't think a governorship makes one more QUALIFIED.

[havocmom]

28. Neither does being a Senator

The qualifications are individual. Some governors have them, some don't. Same with Senators. If being a Senator were enough right there, take a hard look to the Hill and shudder.

Think about Craig; he's looking of a new gig. Did being a Senator make him QUALIFIED?
Frist?
Lott?
Hatch?
All the DEMS who have bent over for cheney/bush?

Not all Governors are QUALIFIED. I do not want a chief executive whose judgment results in a large dog being caged on top of a car for a long trip.

Qualifications AND experience would be helpful. The US Senate is probably not the best place to shop at for Presidential material.

[NoodleBoy]

4. executive experience is treasured by candidates and respected by voters

Even though it's not the case, many voters think of people who've served in Congress more as advisors than community leaders or people in charge of anything, and that's even more so in the case of the minority party, who control no chairmanships.

A public policy and campaign politics textbook I've read agreed-- when someone is asked to vote for a person in charge of a staff of between 3 (a freshman congressman's staff) and 30 (the Speaker's staff) and a person in charge of a staff of hundreds or thousands, they take the second choice.

[JDPriestly]

5. They have executive experience.

[H2O Man]

13. Correct. n/t

[terisan]

9. I think the office of governor puts one in a beter postion to organize a campaign and

gather the support of other governors.

A governor is usually in command of a centralzed statewide political machine. Senators don't usually have anything to mobilize.

I know Carter got support of other governors early on-and got commitments. I believe Bush did the same.

I don't know about Clinton.

I think Carter and Clinton presidencies did suffer from their lack of experience in national politics.

I don't think Reagan really functioned much as a president; I don't think Bush would ever be a good president.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Carter and Reagan were not SITTING Governors

Carter was GA's governor from 1971 to 1975. He was elected President in 1976. Reagan was CA's governor from 1967 to 1975. He was elected President in 1980.

[illinoisprogressive]

15. Most all senators are entrenched in insider Washington for many years, is why..

[emulatorloo]

21. better somebody who knows Washington than Governor NO_NOTHING Bush eom

[TwilightGardener]

25. Exactly--I'm pulling for the Washington Insiders this year--somebody

who knows WTF they're doing and who they're dealing with and how things fucking work.

[sandnsea]

17. 1960 was the last great President too

Something to think about.

[TwilightGardener]

20. Nail on the head!!!

[saltpoint]

22. I second that. John Kennedy was the cat's pajamas. And a senator.