Do you think experience should count for a lot when judging a candidate?

Question

I graduated with a political science and history degree over 12 years ago. I really think experience (and age) is an overrated factor. Much more overrated than most folks would think. You can take almost any candidate and plug him into the equation and if he is overly intelligent he will do just fine as a President, Senator, or a Representative. The first couple of months in office will be a bit rocky, but after that it should be smooth sailing IF the politician is intelligent and truly concerned about his/ her constituents.

Answer 1

I can tell I'm not in favor of any candidate with a political science degree.  You basically study how to get elected and make a career out of it.  I'm in favor of term limits including how much political life you can have.  Service to a government should be just that.

Experience matters to a degree depending upon what office you seek.  With Commander in chief I really don't like anybody without executive experience preferably military.

Answer 2

Yes experience matters. Quit lying about your degree.

Answer 3

It would depend on the TYPE of political experience one has. Take Obama. He came of political age at the worst possible time for the US. 8 years of Clinton's cynical expediency, followed by 8 years of Bush's stubborn idiocy. Where were the statesmen and stateswomen to act as role models for Obama's generation? Plus these 16 years (actually going further back to Reagan) have meant an unprecedented dumbing down of the US public education system, the mainstream media, and public discourse in general. So how can these times produce enlightened leadership? Therefore my answer would be that it's not the length of political experience, but its quality that counts.

Answer 4

I think besides intelligence that a candidate should also have some experience.  Without experience then what do you have to fall back on?  Experience is what makes us wiser if we learn the lessons presented to us in our lives daily.  It also allows us to know what to do in certain situations or in a job so we can do the best with the skills we have.  Would you want a expert fisherman to do surgery on you?  I would not want an untrained and inexperienced doctor to perform certain things on me.  The same goes for placing someone who has never held a public office or one for the short term no matter what it has been in the place of President....the President needs several years experience in several capacities so he or she can do the job for the benefit of those that elected them.

Answer 5

NO it shouldn't! There really is very little that can prepare you for the Presidency. Experience is just a campaign strategy both parties used for decades when it suits them. It NEVER EVER has had any bearing on how a President will fare.

Answer 6

No politics at that level need experience to be able to swim with the sharks.

Answer 7

If you owned a small business and were hiring a managing director, it's likely you would want someone who had demonstrated good judgment and had a track record of accomplishment.  Sorry, but tangible results and integrity matter.  

Answer 8

I would think so. But I don't think it should count for A LOT when judging a candidate.... maybe a 50/50 thing. Because when you base all or most of the weight on experience, we run into problems like what we have. I think you need to have some experience to run for president though, that's just me.

Sara B - how do you know Cannonball's lying about having a degree?

Answer 9

if your very educated person i don't think u should need experience

Answer 10

Book learning & practical experience are worlds apart.

I think the majority of pundits question Palin's & Obama's political experience. Personally, political experience poison's a person's mind. Obama sold his soul to get nominated. Follows the party line & sucked up to the Chicago political machine to get his start. at least Palin beat an old boys network to get where she is. That counts for lots more in my book.

Answer 11

I basically agree with you, I think core values and intelligence are more important than experience alone.

Answer 12

Obama has no experience and it shows, yes, I think you need experience, Obama couldn't find the mens room.

Answer 13

I agree with you that the whole experience issue is overblown.  James Buchanan had more experience in government than any other man in history, but he proved to be one of the worst presidents in American history.  Chester A. Arthur had only a year of experience in any government office at all (he was the vice president), but he proved to be an effective reformer while in office.  George Washington was able to get a government that had never been tried before into a stable nation with only minimal political experience (he was a general).

Answer 14

You are absolutely right.

Judgment is important.  Being president or a legislator is not like being a technician where you do the same thing over and over so that experience makes you able to do it quicker and better.

Experience per se is not a good indicator.  If a brain surgeon loses almost all of his patients, you might be better off with one less experienced who succeeds most of the time with his patients.