Governors running for President

[nat4900]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

 

[The Rabbi]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

WEll, let's see:
GW Bush
Clinton
Reagan
Carter

were all governors before becoming president. There seems to have been a shift after Nixon because Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, and Truman had all been Congressmen first. Roosevelt had been governor of NY but he had done a lot between that and being president.

 

[Pogo]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

You're touching on two different questions. The first half is about whether a governor is "better qualified", the second whether a governor "has a better chance to win". Two different things.

 

[PratchettFan]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

I don't think so. Since the thirties I think 5 of the presidents were ex-governors as opposed to 8 non-governors. Only 1 had no previous political offices (Eisenhower). It's going to come down to how they come across to the voters - who are not monolithic.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

As long as they were never a community organizer I don't care

 

[nat4900]

You're touching on two different questions. The first half is about whether a governor is "better qualified", the second whether a governor "has a better chance to win". Two different things.

You're right........My contention, however, is that what "seems" as better qualifications often offers the best chance to win the WH. So I'l ask more directly

 

[Pogo]

You're touching on two different questions. The first half is about whether a governor is "better qualified", the second whether a governor "has a better chance to win". Two different things.

You're right........My contention, however, is that what "seems" as better qualifications often offers the best chance to win the WH. So I'l ask more directly

--- which?

"Having better qualifications" -- even in perceptions only -- doesn't necessarily translate to success. If it did Bruce Springstein would have never sold a record. Let's face it, we don't vote for who's best qualified -- we vote for whichever ad campaign made the best commercials. We don't elect executives; we buy an illusion.

 

[blackhawk]

It depends on the candidate having been a Governor does have advantages a Governor much like a President does have to work with both sides to get things done having a good record on that front is an advantage. That though is not always enough Mike Huckabee had a good record in what was blue Arkansas following Bill Clinton he's never won the Republican Nomination Mitt Romney also had a good record as Governor of blue Massachusetts did not win in 2012. There are a lot of factors that go into winning a Presidential election sometimes having been a Governor helps sometimes it makes no difference at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

I'd have to look it up for sure, but I believe more of our Presidents have been governors than have been Congressmembers.

 

[Flopper]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

I would say being a governor certainly gives you a better chance than beign a house painter. However, it really depends on the house painter.

 

[nat4900]

--- which?

"Having better qualifications" -- even in perceptions only -- doesn't necessarily translate to success. If it did Bruce Springstein would have never sold a record. Let's face it, we don't vote for who's best qualified -- we vote for whichever ad campaign made the best commercials. We don't elect executives; we buy an illusion.

First, my apologies....my computer froze in the middle of a sentence.....

......and before it does again...I AGREE with your above statement.

 

[Flopper]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

I'd have to look it up for sure, but I believe more of our Presidents have been governors than have been Congress members.

17 governors, 19 members of the House, and 16 Senators have become president.

 

[longknife]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

I don't think so. Since the thirties I think 5 of the presidents were ex-governors as opposed to 8 non-governors. Only 1 had no previous political offices (Eisenhower). It's going to come down to how they come across to the voters - who are not monolithic.

Ike was nothing but a politician!!!!

That's why he was promoted to LtCol to General of the Army - his ability to play politics and allay the disagreements of many different viewpoints.

 

[longknife]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

I'd have to look it up for sure, but I believe more of our Presidents have been governors than have been Congressmembers.

Only 17 presidents have been governors!!!

 

[longknife]

The major qualification for becoming president is how much money you can raise to run your campaign!

 

[CowboyTed]

As long as they were never a community organizer I don't care

You probably prefer his predecessor who got involved in unnecessary wars and threw the economy off the cliff...

Under almost every parameter Obama was better than his predecessor..

But on Deficit Reduction he has beat every GOP President for almost 100 years... GOP Presidents set up Al Qaeda, financed them, ignored the warnings of them attacking and got them home to Saudi when sh*t hit the fan...

They then invented a myth and invaded Iraq on false evidence.

Over heated the economy during a war,.....

In any other country the GOP would not be let in charge for a generation...
But they have useful idiots who don't seem to get it... The Tea Party doesn't represent you, they point at people who you don't like and they say they will fix that. But none of their policies does that..
Look at Kansas, it is the Tea Party policy incubator.. Look at the numbers they are running the state into the ground...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....
We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.
Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.
As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.
So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

Governor: Executive branch experience. head of government experience.
As for "stand a better chance"... may more governors have been elected PotUS than senators.

 

[PratchettFan]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

I don't think so. Since the thirties I think 5 of the presidents were ex-governors as opposed to 8 non-governors. Only 1 had no previous political offices (Eisenhower). It's going to come down to how they come across to the voters - who are not monolithic.

Ike was nothing but a politician!!!!

That's why he was promoted to LtCol to General of the Army - his ability to play politics and allay the disagreements of many different viewpoints.

All generals are politicians.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As long as they were never a community organizer I don't care

You probably prefer his predecessor who got involved in unnecessary wars and threw the economy off the cliff...

Oh look... mindless partisan bigotry.
:yawn:

 

[Pogo]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

I don't think so. Since the thirties I think 5 of the presidents were ex-governors as opposed to 8 non-governors. Only 1 had no previous political offices (Eisenhower). It's going to come down to how they come across to the voters - who are not monolithic.

Ike was nothing but a politician!!!!

That's why he was promoted to LtCol to General of the Army - his ability to play politics and allay the disagreements of many different viewpoints.

All generals are politicians.

Meh -- only in the sense of having to negotiate different elements. Certainly not in the whore-sense of pandering for votes.
I'd consider generals more like executives.

Relevant to the MIC (which his draft originally called the "Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex"), Ike famously noted,
"God help this country when somebody sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do".
And since then, no one has.