• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How important is experience when choosing a President?

How much importance do YOU put on experience when you cast your vote?

  • Total voters
    30
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
How important is experience when choosing a President?

How much importance do YOU put on experience when you cast your vote?

For years I have railed against experienced "Beltway Politicians"... the ones we always complain about... for doing the same stuff to us that they've always done. The idea of someone not beholden to party interests was/is hugely attractive. I wanted somebody to be pretty much independent... an "outsider". I mean, if prison is a school for criminals, isn't Congress the same thing?

Yet the last couple times we have tried that... Carter and Obama... it's been a huge unmitigated failure.

Carter was a competent Governor, but knew almost no one in Washington and didn't even try to fit in. He was resented because of that, and nobody would work with him. He was an outsider and had no clue how to work that.

Obama's biggest shortcoming has turned out to be his inexperience and lack of established working relationships. If he had served at least a couple full terms in Congress, and established some friendships, or at least working relationships, I think his Presidency would have been far different. Capable, at least. His cooperation issues are not wholly the Rep's fault.

Hence I have been rethinking this. I still don't want somebody so entrenched that I can never trust them, yet I now realize they need to know something about how to work the system, and you can only gain that from the system, so I've come to realize that I don't want somebody so out-of-touch and so inexperienced that they're weak and ineffective, either. Where's the happy-medium?
 
How important is experience when choosing a President?
Click to expand...

i'm most interested in the candidate's platform. experience gives me the opportunity to see their voting record, though, so it's at least somewhat valuable for that reason.
 
radcen said:
How important is experience when choosing a President?

How much importance do YOU put on experience when you cast your vote?

For years I have railed against experienced "Beltway Politicians"... the ones we always complain about... for doing the same stuff to us that they've always done. The idea of someone not beholden to party interests was/is hugely attractive. I wanted somebody to be pretty much independent... an "outsider". I mean, if prison is a school for criminals, isn't Congress the same thing?

Yet the last couple times we have tried that... Carter and Obama... it's been a huge unmitigated failure.

Carter was a competent Governor, but knew almost no one in Washington and didn't even try to fit in. He was resented because of that, and nobody would work with him. He was an outsider and had no clue how to work that.

Obama's biggest shortcoming has turned out to be his inexperience and lack of established working relationships. If he had served at least a couple full terms in Congress, and established some friendships, or at least working relationships, I think his Presidency would have been far different. Capable, at least. His cooperation issues are not wholly the Rep's fault.

Hence I have been rethinking this. I still don't want somebody so entrenched that I can never trust them, yet I now realize they need to know something about how to work the system, and you can only gain that from the system, so I've come to realize that I don't want somebody so out-of-touch and so inexperienced that they're weak and ineffective, either. Where's the happy-medium?
Click to expand...

Experience is a factor, but I can't really rank it. There will be 2 major candidates(outside chance of a third). One will most likely be significantly better than the other in how I rank them. Usually it is really clear cut, one stands for things I support, one stands for things I don't support. Primaries are a somewhat different animal. In primaries I cannot think of a case where it experience has been a deciding factor for me though, so again it is hard to quantify.
 
radcen said:
How important is experience when choosing a President?

How much importance do YOU put on experience when you cast your vote?

For years I have railed against experienced "Beltway Politicians"... the ones we always complain about... for doing the same stuff to us that they've always done. The idea of someone not beholden to party interests was/is hugely attractive. I wanted somebody to be pretty much independent... an "outsider". I mean, if prison is a school for criminals, isn't Congress the same thing?

Yet the last couple times we have tried that... Carter and Obama... it's been a huge unmitigated failure.

Carter was a competent Governor, but knew almost no one in Washington and didn't even try to fit in. He was resented because of that, and nobody would work with him. He was an outsider and had no clue how to work that.

Obama's biggest shortcoming has turned out to be his inexperience and lack of established working relationships. If he had served at least a couple full terms in Congress, and established some friendships, or at least working relationships, I think his Presidency would have been far different. Capable, at least. His cooperation issues are not wholly the Rep's fault.

Hence I have been rethinking this. I still don't want somebody so entrenched that I can never trust them, yet I now realize they need to know something about how to work the system, and you can only gain that from the system, so I've come to realize that I don't want somebody so out-of-touch and so inexperienced that they're weak and ineffective, either. Where's the happy-medium?
Click to expand...

It is a necessary but not sufficient criterion.
 
Helix said:
i'm most interested in the candidate's platform. experience gives me the opportunity to see their voting record, though, so it's at least somewhat valuable for that reason.
Click to expand...

That is about right, though, I would put more weight on whether the candidate intends to and can achieve, what she is promising me than on the promise.
 
That depends on what kind of "experience" you're talking about. Political experience? Somewhat important. Leadership experience? Huge. Business experience? Very important. Experience managing a budget? Huge. Payroll? Huge.
 
joG said:
That is about right, though, I would put more weight on whether the candidate intends to and can achieve, what she is promising me than on the promise.
Click to expand...

the answer to that is pretty much always no, unless the president's party controls congress. even then, you're going to get fifty to sixty percent of what they are promising at most.
 
radcen said:
How important is experience when choosing a President?

How much importance do YOU put on experience when you cast your vote?

For years I have railed against experienced "Beltway Politicians"... the ones we always complain about... for doing the same stuff to us that they've always done. The idea of someone not beholden to party interests was/is hugely attractive. I wanted somebody to be pretty much independent... an "outsider". I mean, if prison is a school for criminals, isn't Congress the same thing?

Yet the last couple times we have tried that... Carter and Obama... it's been a huge unmitigated failure.

Carter was a competent Governor, but knew almost no one in Washington and didn't even try to fit in. He was resented because of that, and nobody would work with him. He was an outsider and had no clue how to work that.

Obama's biggest shortcoming has turned out to be his inexperience and lack of established working relationships. If he had served at least a couple full terms in Congress, and established some friendships, or at least working relationships, I think his Presidency would have been far different. Capable, at least. His cooperation issues are not wholly the Rep's fault.

Hence I have been rethinking this. I still don't want somebody so entrenched that I can never trust them, yet I now realize they need to know something about how to work the system, and you can only gain that from the system, so I've come to realize that I don't want somebody so out-of-touch and so inexperienced that they're weak and ineffective, either. Where's the happy-medium?
Click to expand...


Let's examine history then.

teddy Roosevelt was a great president, accomplished more than many combinations of presidents. He had been a state rep, teacher, attorney general of New York\, secretary of the Navy as well as a successful politician.

Kennedy was a token Senator and former Naval officer and almost got us into WW3. Johnson was a beltway bully who declined to run a second term he was so despised. Nixon had been all the above, a lawyer and a governor and actually, his criminal activities notwithstanding, accomplished a lot. Carter we have reviewed but we have to add internationally incompetent in his case, he was not equipped to handle the affairs of foreign dealings.

Reagan, well, a former broadcaster, union president twice, student revolt leader, secretary of the Actor's guild and Governor of California.

So in answer to your question, life and management experience are manifest, but political experience is what you get.
 
radcen said:
How important is experience when choosing a President?

How much importance do YOU put on experience when you cast your vote?

For years I have railed against experienced "Beltway Politicians"... the ones we always complain about... for doing the same stuff to us that they've always done. The idea of someone not beholden to party interests was/is hugely attractive. I wanted somebody to be pretty much independent... an "outsider". I mean, if prison is a school for criminals, isn't Congress the same thing?

Yet the last couple times we have tried that... Carter and Obama... it's been a huge unmitigated failure.

Carter was a competent Governor, but knew almost no one in Washington and didn't even try to fit in. He was resented because of that, and nobody would work with him. He was an outsider and had no clue how to work that.

Obama's biggest shortcoming has turned out to be his inexperience and lack of established working relationships. If he had served at least a couple full terms in Congress, and established some friendships, or at least working relationships, I think his Presidency would have been far different. Capable, at least. His cooperation issues are not wholly the Rep's fault.

Hence I have been rethinking this. I still don't want somebody so entrenched that I can never trust them, yet I now realize they need to know something about how to work the system, and you can only gain that from the system, so I've come to realize that I don't want somebody so out-of-touch and so inexperienced that they're weak and ineffective, either. Where's the happy-medium?
Click to expand...

Experience should never be considered a crucial factor in deciding whom to vote for, for president. Dubya had a significant amount of experience...and we all see how that turned out.
 
Helix said:
the answer to that is pretty much always no, unless the president's party controls congress. even then, you're going to get fifty to sixty percent of what they are promising at most.
Click to expand...

yep. one will get you 80%, some 50%, but I think 30% is just too little.
 
radcen said:
How important is experience when choosing a President?

How much importance do YOU put on experience when you cast your vote?

For years I have railed against experienced "Beltway Politicians"... the ones we always complain about... for doing the same stuff to us that they've always done. The idea of someone not beholden to party interests was/is hugely attractive. I wanted somebody to be pretty much independent... an "outsider". I mean, if prison is a school for criminals, isn't Congress the same thing?

Yet the last couple times we have tried that... Carter and Obama... it's been a huge unmitigated failure.

Carter was a competent Governor, but knew almost no one in Washington and didn't even try to fit in. He was resented because of that, and nobody would work with him. He was an outsider and had no clue how to work that.

Obama's biggest shortcoming has turned out to be his inexperience and lack of established working relationships. If he had served at least a couple full terms in Congress, and established some friendships, or at least working relationships, I think his Presidency would have been far different. Capable, at least. His cooperation issues are not wholly the Rep's fault.

Hence I have been rethinking this. I still don't want somebody so entrenched that I can never trust them, yet I now realize they need to know something about how to work the system, and you can only gain that from the system, so I've come to realize that I don't want somebody so out-of-touch and so inexperienced that they're weak and ineffective, either. Where's the happy-medium?
Click to expand...

Its a little ironic that you talk about Carter and Obama and yet fail to mention probably the most incompetent President this country has ever had. GWB drove this country to the brink of bankruptcy and had a foregin policy that was nothing short of a complete disaster. He had some experience as Governor of Texas that obviously did not help him know how to run a country. So that being said, I think experience can be a big help but it is not always an indicator of success.
 
Experience is meaningless. Lincoln was very inexperienced and was one of the greatest presidents in US history. Buchanan was one of the most experienced and is the second worst president in US history after George W Bush. Bush was also experienced and is undeniably the worst chief executive and head of state in the history of all first world democracies.
 
radcen said:
How important is experience when choosing a President?

How much importance do YOU put on experience when you cast your vote?

For years I have railed against experienced "Beltway Politicians"... the ones we always complain about... for doing the same stuff to us that they've always done. The idea of someone not beholden to party interests was/is hugely attractive. I wanted somebody to be pretty much independent... an "outsider". I mean, if prison is a school for criminals, isn't Congress the same thing?

Yet the last couple times we have tried that... Carter and Obama... it's been a huge unmitigated failure.

Carter was a competent Governor, but knew almost no one in Washington and didn't even try to fit in. He was resented because of that, and nobody would work with him. He was an outsider and had no clue how to work that.

Obama's biggest shortcoming has turned out to be his inexperience and lack of established working relationships. If he had served at least a couple full terms in Congress, and established some friendships, or at least working relationships, I think his Presidency would have been far different. Capable, at least. His cooperation issues are not wholly the Rep's fault.

Hence I have been rethinking this. I still don't want somebody so entrenched that I can never trust them, yet I now realize they need to know something about how to work the system, and you can only gain that from the system, so I've come to realize that I don't want somebody so out-of-touch and so inexperienced that they're weak and ineffective, either. Where's the happy-medium?
Click to expand...
I think my ideal president would be one who knows how to work the system but wants to change said system at the same time.

Since, IMO, many if not all of the issues we have are caused by the system...
 
radcen said:
How important is experience when choosing a President?

How much importance do YOU put on experience when you cast your vote?

For years I have railed against experienced "Beltway Politicians"... the ones we always complain about... for doing the same stuff to us that they've always done. The idea of someone not beholden to party interests was/is hugely attractive. I wanted somebody to be pretty much independent... an "outsider". I mean, if prison is a school for criminals, isn't Congress the same thing?

Yet the last couple times we have tried that... Carter and Obama... it's been a huge unmitigated failure.

Carter was a competent Governor, but knew almost no one in Washington and didn't even try to fit in. He was resented because of that, and nobody would work with him. He was an outsider and had no clue how to work that.

Obama's biggest shortcoming has turned out to be his inexperience and lack of established working relationships. If he had served at least a couple full terms in Congress, and established some friendships, or at least working relationships, I think his Presidency would have been far different. Capable, at least. His cooperation issues are not wholly the Rep's fault.

Hence I have been rethinking this. I still don't want somebody so entrenched that I can never trust them, yet I now realize they need to know something about how to work the system, and you can only gain that from the system, so I've come to realize that I don't want somebody so out-of-touch and so inexperienced that they're weak and ineffective, either. Where's the happy-medium?
Click to expand...

Interesting that you cite Obama and Carter and then call them "huge, unmitigated failures".... Lumping those two together and calling them "huge, unmitigated failures" gets this thing off to a bad start... as 1) each are generally considered mid-tier presidents, in terms of presidential success (while you were silent about another recent president that is generally thought of as lower in the rankings) and 2) Obama actually comes to Washington with some (albeit not much) inside experience, the only president in 35 years, except H.W. that actually had Washington experience when he assumed office.

While the question is a valid one, the introduction is all wrong. Next time, try it without the partisan hackery so boldly displayed.
 
I don't tend to rank experience at all, mostly pay attention to policy and beliefs. Well, I do like voting records, so in that case I suppose was incorrect is saying it doesn't matter, but it's generally boils down to if they support the things I support or not. Even if, with Presidents, policy isn't quite as important as it is in local, state, and house/senate races.
 
I really don't think there is any job out there that can prepare one for being POTUS. Not Governor, even though it is an executive position, not Senator, not CEO of a large corporation, not a former General, not Vice President.

That said, if you sucked at any of those things you probably aren't cut out to be POTUS either.

As much as I dislike Hillary, I actually think being First Lady prepares one to be President more than any of the other things I listed. Why? Because, assuming the marriage is a close one, the First Lady will be intimately aware of what the POTUS is going through. It doesn't mean she will be a good President, it just means she has a better idea of what to expect than anyone else, other than former Presidents.
 
BrewerBob said:
I really don't think there is any job out there that can prepare one for being POTUS. Not Governor, even though it is an executive position, not Senator, not CEO of a large corporation, not a former General, not Vice President.

That said, if you sucked at any of those things you probably aren't cut out to be POTUS either.

As much as I dislike Hillary, I actually think being First Lady prepares one to be President more than any of the other things I listed. Why? Because, assuming the marriage is a close one, the First Lady will be intimately aware of what the POTUS is going through. It doesn't mean she will be a good President, it just means she has a better idea of what to expect than anyone else, other than former Presidents.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think George HW might have been the most "qualfied" president we have had in decades because he had legislative experience, business experience and a variety of jobs inside various administrations. George HW, in my opinion, was a decent president....

As to sharing a bed with a president as a qualification, not only to you get the benefit of being a day to day eyewitness to the issues of the oval office, when you get to the oval office, you get to share a bed with someone that has been there before... a hands on, day to day, coach.
 
BrewerBob said:
I really don't think there is any job out there that can prepare one for being POTUS. Not Governor, even though it is an executive position, not Senator, not CEO of a large corporation, not a former General, not Vice President.

That said, if you sucked at any of those things you probably aren't cut out to be POTUS either.

As much as I dislike Hillary, I actually think being First Lady prepares one to be President more than any of the other things I listed. Why? Because, assuming the marriage is a close one, the First Lady will be intimately aware of what the POTUS is going through. It doesn't mean she will be a good President, it just means she has a better idea of what to expect than anyone else, other than former Presidents.
Click to expand...
If I had to rank them, I'd place Senator/House Rep at the closest to being 'good' experience, but primarily because of the working relationships that should have been established within the framework of the federal government.

Governor would be second, due to the executive aspect.

I really don't place CEO/business executive experience as relevant at all. The two... running a for/profit business where you have to tell people 'no', and running government where you almost can't tell people 'no'... aren't even comparable.
 
One of the top considerations I have. Aside from basic ideological similarities and sheer likelihood of getting support , I go with experience, and then the team the candidate assembles for advisory purposes.

All things considered, I prefer an insider to an outsider 9 times out of 10.
 
I am assuming you mean POLITICAL experience. The biggest problem with our government now is PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS. Term limits NOW!!!!
 
The reality in modern times is that Presidents are largely spokespeople. You vote for a candidate. That candidate brings in a whole team of people. Like 90% of that team will be the same for any Republican regardless of which Republican candidate you pick and 90% with be the same from one Democrat to another. That team isn't just the cabinet, it is hundreds of people. The team is who really makes the vast majority of the decisions. Most of the time, the President's job is to act as the liaison between that team and the public- they're a spokesperson.

Now, that isn't entirely true. There are times when a President steers the team in a particular way. But, that's actually pretty rare. Most often what the public perceives as a President pushing for something is actually a push that has been percolating up the chain from a lot of different quarters for a long time and regardless of which member of the party was in the oval office, it would emerge at about the same time and in about the same way.

So, experience in political leadership roles does matter, but isn't crucial. The most important thing, by far, is which party they're from. Second to that, you have their platform, which suggests how their team might differ slightly from another member of their party. Third, the people they have around them while they're running give you a pretty good idea of how they might shape their team a bit differently.
 
I would take wisdom and character above all else, which may be why Lincoln, with very little experience as a politician, is my favorite.
 
The Mark said:
I think my ideal president would be one who knows how to work the system but wants to change said system at the same time.

Since, IMO, many if not all of the issues we have are caused by the system...
Click to expand...

Obama has changed the system with his magic pen; not the effective change many hoped for.

Not only does a president need to be able to work within the system, but also be able to work with others within the system, something Obama has no aptitude for. I'll bet he can't even pronounce the word "consensus."

It doesn't fit his ideology.
 
I would rather they be experienced at living without the teat of government in their mouths.
 
Experience at what, exactly? Being president? Obviously that's not an option. Experience in an executive branch? Governors haven't made any better presidents than anyone else. Military experience? Business experience? Legislative experience? Judicial experience? As it turns out, as long as you're doing something, and doing it well, that experience translates. Leadership in any form works just as well as any other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom