Governors running for President

[Skylar]

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?

Historically? Fuck yeah. Reagan, GW, Roosevelt, Carter, Clinton....all governors. The other deep pool is VPs. Johnson, Truman, Bush, Ford, Nixon. All VPs. And in terms of non-incumbant elections, only Bush and Nixon managed it. Strictly speaking, Ford was never elected. So governor is clearly better.

Next after that is military experience. Kennedy and Eisenhower fit that bill.

No military experience and no executive experience? There's Obama and.....Wilson? At least in the modern era.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yeah, but lately? Its been dominated by Governors, incumbent Presidents and VPs. There's been 10 between them. Senators have managed it twice. Only once without military experience.

In modern history, executive experience is the 800lb gorillla. With being president followed by being governor being the two biggest great apes.

 

[Flopper]

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...

I have always found that amazing. GOP candidates win their primaries preaching small government and radical changes to the federal bureaucracy; When nominated they seek to prove they really aren't some right wing lunatic in order to attract independents and Democrats. When elected they expand government just as much as Democrats only in a different direction. One of the major differences between Democrats and Republicans, is that you know what you're going to get when you vote for a Democrat. I think this is because Democrats are more pragmatic and less likely to promise the impossible.

 

[Pheonixops]

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 prefer a governor because you can see how they act as an Executive for their state which on a smaller scale; is pretty much equivalent to being POTUS.

 

[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 prefer a governor because you can see how they act as an Executive for their state which on a smaller scale; is pretty much equivalent to being POTUS.

Governors have the executive experience. Congressmen have the legislative experience. Generals have the military experience. CEOs have the business experience. Who's to say what experience will serve a president the most. However, the most important attribute of any president is leadership. I would rather have a person with proven leadership ability regardless of what his experience might be. You can always hire experience but the president must be leader.

 

[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 Congress members.

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

Of course, you did sort of forget to mention that of those Congressmembers who went on to be President, 7 were also state governors AFTER they served in Congress. So if we really wanted to be very specific in this comparison, we should discuss former governors and former Congressmembers who have never been governors.

 

[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 prefer a governor because you can see how they act as an Executive for their state which on a smaller scale; is pretty much equivalent to being POTUS.

Governors have the executive experience. Congressmen have the legislative experience. Generals have the military experience. CEOs have the business experience. Who's to say what experience will serve a president the most. However, the most important attribute of any president is leadership. I would rather have a person with proven leadership ability regardless of what his experience might be. You can always hire experience but the president must be leader.

Well, if you study the numbers honestly, it seems apparent that people tend to trust those with executive experience, with or without the other experiences as well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?"

The notion that a governor is 'better qualified' to be president is completely unfounded.

And the 'governor advantage' is likely no longer in play, where governors were once perceived to be 'Washington outsiders' not tainted by Beltway 'politics as usual.'

 

[Kosh]

"Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?"

The notion that a governor is 'better qualified' to be president is completely unfounded.

And the 'governor advantage' is likely no longer in play, where governors were once perceived to be 'Washington outsiders' not tainted by Beltway 'politics as usual.'

Says the far left drone!

 

[M14 Shooter]

One of the major differences between Democrats and Republicans, is that you know what you're going to get when you vote for a Democrat. I think this is because Democrats are more pragmatic and less likely to promise the impossible.

If the Dem candidates ran as the budding socialists they are, they would never get elected.

 

[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.

Yeah, but lately? Its been dominated by Governors, incumbent Presidents and VPs. There's been 10 between them. Senators have managed it twice. Only once without military experience.

In modern history, executive experience is the 800lb gorillla. With being president followed by being governor being the two biggest great apes.

The reason we had so many governors make it to the oval office is the advantages they have over other candidates.

First, a presidential campaign is a huge undertaking. You have to manage a large staff, balance the books of a multi-million dollar operation, cultivate donors, make public appearances, give speeches, kiss babies, perform well in debates. A gubernatorial campaign is much like presidential campaign only larger in scope The executive experience you mentioned certainly helps them through their campaign.

Second, Congress, where most candidates emerge is an inherently unpopular institution. Governors can escape this burden — they can run as Washington outsiders, and they can run more on their individual records. Obama is the first president to be elected from congress since Warren Harding.

I don't know it we can say our best presidents were governors. Washington, Lincoln, John Adams, and Truman are consistently ranked highly; none of which had any executive experience. Andrew Johnson, Calvin Coolidge, and George Bush, all governors rank pretty low.

 

[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 prefer a governor because you can see how they act as an Executive for their state which on a smaller scale; is pretty much equivalent to being POTUS.

Governors have the executive experience. Congressmen have the legislative experience. Generals have the military experience. CEOs have the business experience. Who's to say what experience will serve a president the most. However, the most important attribute of any president is leadership. I would rather have a person with proven leadership ability regardless of what his experience might be. You can always hire experience but the president must be leader.

Well, if you study the numbers honestly, it seems apparent that people tend to trust those with executive experience, with or without the other experiences as well.

I agree, however we've had some pretty good presidents with no executive experience. I think people prefer governors to congressman because most people are unhappy with the performance of congress.

A governor can take credit for reforming education in his state or reducing spending. While a congressman can only take credit for sponsoring or voting for a bill which doesn't carry much weight with voters.

 

[eagle7_31]

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 3 Senators went from the senate to the White House, Harding, Kennedy and Obama.

 

[eagle7_31]

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 3 Senators went from the senate to the White House, Harding, Kennedy and Obama.

Correction, since 1900.

 

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

Only 3 Senators went from the senate to the White House, Harding, Kennedy and Obama.

Correction, since 1900.

And Nixon and Johnson.

 

[eagle7_31]

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 3 Senators went from the senate to the White House, Harding, Kennedy and Obama.

Correction, since 1900.

And Nixon and Johnson.

They did not go directly from the senate to the White House, they were both VP's first.

 

[Mac1958]

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 a governor has a "better" chance at the presidency per se.

Some "conventional wisdom" I've heard is that a governor makes a better President because of the executive experience. Minor problem, though: It hasn't really played out that way.

Also, in a way I can see where a member of Congress might be better because they know and understand that body and the national political process better.

I dunno.

.

 

[nat4900]

They did not go directly from the senate to the White House, they were both VP's first.

As an aside, keep your eye on governor Martinez of NM for the GOP VP slot.....female, Hispanic good speaker and fairly savvy on politics.

As a democrat, I'm hoping against her.

 

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

Only 3 Senators went from the senate to the White House, Harding, Kennedy and Obama.

Correction, since 1900.

And Nixon and Johnson.

They did not go directly from the senate to the White House, they were both VP's first.

But they did go from the Senate to the WH.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yeah, but lately? Its been dominated by Governors, incumbent Presidents and VPs. There's been 10 between them. Senators have managed it twice. Only once without military experience.

In modern history, executive experience is the 800lb gorillla. With being president followed by being governor being the two biggest great apes.

The reason we had so many governors make it to the oval office is the advantages they have over other candidates.

First, a presidential campaign is a huge undertaking. You have to manage a large staff, balance the books of a multi-million dollar operation, cultivate donors, make public appearances, give speeches, kiss babies, perform well in debates. A gubernatorial campaign is much like presidential campaign only larger in scope The executive experience you mentioned certainly helps them through their campaign.

Second, Congress, where most candidates emerge is an inherently unpopular institution. Governors can escape this burden — they can run as Washington outsiders, and they can run more on their individual records. Obama is the first president to be elected from congress since Warren Harding.

I don't know it we can say our best presidents were governors. Washington, Lincoln, John Adams, and Truman are consistently ranked highly; none of which had any executive experience. Andrew Johnson, Calvin Coolidge, and George Bush, all governors rank pretty low.

Better? That's another issue. A greater chance at the presidency? Governors definitely have an advantage. And I'd say that its profound. The executive experience angle plays well. As being a governor is, as you alluded, like being a little president. You're an executive dealing with a legislature and a judiciary. You're appointing, vetoing, issuing executive orders, acting in the role of an executive. Its immediately relevant.

The only major hole in the gubentatorial resume for president is the foreign policy experience. As generally governors have none. Most presidents go in as babes in the woods. Only someone like Eisenhower would be even remotely prepared. And then only on the military end.