The Democrat Thread

[bmags]

She will never win the presidency (and not, not because she was a women, but because of all the layoffs she had, etc...they will hammer her like the democrats hammered her in California). I also would point out I think in many cases a mediocre CEO is probably far better prepared to be a president and far smarter then most of our presidents. But I digress cause most normal CEO's would never want to be president.

 

Possibly, there is a lot of talent in this country and I'm sure many would-be great politicians do not want to risk their families.

 

However, we have seen mediocre CEOs become politicians. It's a much different operation, and they haven't been that impressive. Remarkable to me is how many of them have run terribly run campaign organizations.

 

I think that's the first sign to me if they can be good. If you can run a disciplined campaign, then I think you'll be okay in gov't.

[Chisoxfn]

Possibly, there is a lot of talent in this country and I'm sure many would-be great politicians do not want to risk their families.

 

However, we have seen mediocre CEOs become politicians. It's a much different operation, and they haven't been that impressive. Remarkable to me is how many of them have run terribly run campaign organizations.

 

I think that's the first sign to me if they can be good. If you can run a disciplined campaign, then I think you'll be okay in gov't.

Who are you referring to?

[StrangeSox]

I'm not sure how much of an overlap there is between running a global for-profit corporation and running the executive branch of the US government there really is anyway.

[bmags]

You had Whitman and Fiorina run crap campaigns in California, Oberweis and his perpetual nonsense in Illinois, who can forget Linda McMahon. Rick Snyder in Michigan. Corzine.

 

Then you have Romney and GW Bush, who came from political families. And Bloomberg, who was very successful and ran good campaigns. I would say the Romneys probably the best.

[StrangeSox]

There's a lot more similarities between running a campaign (top-down control over everything, fighting for "market share" against competitors, advertising) and being a CEO than running the executive branch. The President isn't a CEO; they have to work with Congress, they cannot hire and fire at will, they have to work with other global leaders, they're not fighting for quarterly profits etc., they have control of the largest army in the history of the world.

[bmags]

There's a lot more similarities between running a campaign (top-down control over everything, fighting for "market share" against competitors, advertising) and being a CEO than running the executive branch. The President isn't a CEO; they have to work with Congress, they cannot hire and fire at will, they have to work with other global leaders, they're not fighting for quarterly profits etc., they have control of the largest army in the history of the world.

 

Right, but it's something they should be good at in that they can run it top down. If they can't run the disciplined communications and messaging in a campaign, that is the one thing that should translate well in the government.

[StrangeSox]

Oh I'd absolutely agree that an incompetent campaign is a sign that you'll fail in office.

[Chisoxfn]

You had Whitman and Fiorina run crap campaigns in California, Oberweis and his perpetual nonsense in Illinois, who can forget Linda McMahon. Rick Snyder in Michigan. Corzine.

 

Then you have Romney and GW Bush, who came from political families. And Bloomberg, who was very successful and ran good campaigns. I would say the Romneys probably the best.

So Romney and Bloomberg were the two most noteably to win it. Romney is probably the best and he was pretty good in his state. Never won as president but did a good job in his state. I never said CEO's would win the presidency easily, I just said, I think a middle of the road CEO is by and large smarter and more successful then a president.

[bmags]

So Romney and Bloomberg were the two most noteably to win it. Romney is probably the best and he was pretty good in his state. Never won as president but did a good job in his state. I never said CEO's would win the presidency easily, I just said, I think a middle of the road CEO is by and large smarter and more successful then a president.

 

Oh, I understand.

 

I read your statement as "as a president".

 

I think it is incredible that people can run a business or huge organization very well, but I think it's a different kind of skill to run a nation too. The energy and emotional discipline required is incredible. I applaud both.

[caulfield12]

Like Herman Cain? Ross Perot? Meg Whitman?

 

I also think basically being an anti-CEO like Nader or Warren requires just as much savvy because you have to win at a financial disadvantage and without a massive team of pr and marketing people behind you.

 

If you want to extend CEO to general/admiral, our country has had a lot more success with leaders from that group.

 

And, of course, Abraham Lincoln had many noted failures, was never anything close to a CEO like George Washington as leader of the Continental Army, and led a very solitary/lonely battle with issues of depression.

[greg775]

She will never win the presidency (and not, not because she was a women, but because of all the layoffs she had, etc...they will hammer her like the democrats hammered her in California). I also would point out I think in many cases a mediocre CEO is probably far better prepared to be a president and far smarter then most of our presidents. But I digress cause most normal CEO's would never want to be president.

Exactly. I can't understand why she's wasting her time when her record as an executive dooms her from the start.

[Jake]

There's a near-zero chance that I'd ever vote for somebody who has never held public office to be President. I think being the CEO of a large business is an especially rotten preparation for knowing how to govern if you haven't been on the other side.

[farmteam]

There's a lot more similarities between running a campaign (top-down control over everything, fighting for "market share" against competitors, advertising) and being a CEO than running the executive branch. The President isn't a CEO; they have to work with Congress, they cannot hire and fire at will, they have to work with other global leaders, they're not fighting for quarterly profits etc., they have control of the largest army in the history of the world.

There's a general skillset for effectively running large organizations that's applicable to both CEOs and Presidents. There are definitely differences, but there are some people that could do both. I'd want them to be in state government or Congress first though.

[bmags]

There's a near-zero chance that I'd ever vote for somebody who has never held public office to be President. I think being the CEO of a large business is an especially rotten preparation for knowing how to govern if you haven't been on the other side.

 

I mean, plenty of generals have done this.

[Chisoxfn]

There's a near-zero chance that I'd ever vote for somebody who has never held public office to be President. I think being the CEO of a large business is an especially rotten preparation for knowing how to govern if you haven't been on the other side.

So Obama had better experience then a CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Yeah, I don't think so. They both might be massive failures but I think you very much underappreciate how much it takes to be a CEO of a large organization. I've met a lot of politicians and I've met a lot of executives...very rarely have I met a politician who was smarter than the executives I've met. Often times, the politicans I've met at various fundraisers / charity events, blow me away their lack of savvy and overall acumen.

[Jenksismyhero]

So Obama had better experience then a CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Yeah, I don't think so. They both might be massive failures but I think you very much underappreciate how much it takes to be a CEO of a large organization. I've met a lot of politicians and I've met a lot of executives...very rarely have I met a politician who was smarter than the executives I've met. Often times, the politicans I've met at various fundraisers / charity events, blow me away their lack of savvy and overall acumen.

 

Um, he was a community activist. Clearly enough experience!

[bmags]

This isn't a dem topic but i lol'd at this survey at the end of the article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/...e-people-anger/

[caulfield12]

So Obama had better experience then a CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Yeah, I don't think so. They both might be massive failures but I think you very much underappreciate how much it takes to be a CEO of a large organization. I've met a lot of politicians and I've met a lot of executives...very rarely have I met a politician who was smarter than the executives I've met. Often times, the politicans I've met at various fundraisers / charity events, blow me away their lack of savvy and overall acumen.

 

And our greatest presidents in Lincoln suffered failure after failure.

 

Grant was one of the two or three worst presidents.

 

That said, the one former CEO I was extremely lucky to work with in the non-profit/volunteer field, Tom Bloch of H&R Block, would trounce that field but he's not an attention seeker (although quitting to teach math in an inner city parochial school certainly gained him a lot of attention).

 

Adele Hall, whose husband ran Hallmark Cards, would be a close second.

Edited September 26, 2015 by caulfield12

[greg775]

And Bob Dole was too mean to be president? How's she pulling it off?

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/01/watch-...ry-for-a-favor/

[juddling]

And Bob Dole was too mean to be president? How's she pulling it off?

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/01/watch-...ry-for-a-favor/

 

 

...but..but....but....she is one of us....the everyday people....heck.....she was flat broke just a short time ago......

[Jake]

So Obama had better experience then a CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Yeah, I don't think so. They both might be massive failures but I think you very much underappreciate how much it takes to be a CEO of a large organization. I've met a lot of politicians and I've met a lot of executives...very rarely have I met a politician who was smarter than the executives I've met. Often times, the politicans I've met at various fundraisers / charity events, blow me away their lack of savvy and overall acumen.

 

To be President of the United States, Barack Obama had way better experience than any CEO who has been running for POTUS. It has nothing to do with whether it's hard to be a CEO or how smart CEOs are. Governing requires a specific set of learned skills and experiences. This is why lots of smart people are against term limits, for example. It takes a long time in government before you know how to write laws well, read laws well, manage your staff and the media, broker deals with opposing legislators, etc. CEOs may very well have some of the raw aptitudes that make for good government executives, but they get none of the expertise from running a company. Obama had been an elected state representative for nearly 8 years and a US senator for nearly 4. You don't get that experience trying to deal with executive boards and managing mergers.

 

There is one area of policy where CEOs may have a better or at least unique insight, which is of course those things that affect large corporations. I'd hesitate to say better, since it will be almost necessarily biased towards their experience of policy as a CEO, but it would at least be a unique point of view to counter the others who won't be familiar with that side of things. Of course, it will all go down the s***ter when they learn how difficult it is to craft a law that doesn't cost too much, doesn't have unintended consequences, and will actually be accepted by peers. For a relevant example of a non-politician going straight to a top executive political position, look at Arnold Schwarzenegger. He straight up admits how wildly unprepared he was and rude of an awakening it was to have to actually run a state.

 

Some might recall during one of the budget fights when Joe Biden got together with Lindsey Graham and some other top Republicans to hammer out a workable deal. And they did. That's because those guys have been in the game for a long time and know how to talk to each other in these situations, how to swallow their pride, and to the extent possible manage more unruly peers. You won't see someone like Carly Fiorina ever come close to grasping that kind of working knowledge of governance.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Jake

[StrangeSox]

Fiorina is doubling down on her PP video nonsense. Her campaign has doctored the already-doctored PP videos and they still can't manage to back up her claims.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol...t_checking.html

[bmags]

Some might recall during one of the budget fights when Joe Biden got together with Lindsey Graham and some other top Republicans to hammer out a workable deal. And they did. That's because those guys have been in the game for a long time and know how to talk to each other in these situations, how to swallow their pride, and to the extent possible manage more unruly peers. You won't see someone like Carly Fiorina ever come close to grasping that kind of working knowledge of governance.

 

See this is where when people think of a CEO as president they would actually be better.

 

Of all of trumps nonsense, his talk about how deals are made, he's not saying you just go into a negotiation and bulldoze them and you magically get what you want. He's said he doesn't go into a negotiation with expectations, but you enter talks and see what you can get.

 

Versus how much of the other Republicans have negotiated which is to start by saying they won't accept anything unless they get all of their sides ideological goals and...

 

Dealmaking is not a unique skill to politics.

[greg775]

Hey, this is not a rip on Hillary. Anybody who posts regularly here knows I despise her so I don't need to get word out on that. I did have a question in the Democratic thread, since you guys are going to win the Presidential election again IMO. And judging from my poll on God I assume we have a fairly Democratic board on Soxtalk, mostly all Demos/liberals. If I'm wrong, my bad.

 

I had a question to you Democrats and Republicans: Q-Partisan politics aside, does anything about your candidate excite you, or make you gung-ho, bursting with pride about being an American and the upcoming Presidential election? Is there anything about your candidate that makes you say, "Damn, these 4-8 years are gonna be great!!! I can't wait!!!" Just curious. In my case, no Republican candidate makes me feel that way and of course no democratic candidate.

So I wanted to see if you were as fatalistic about the future as I am. I mean Obama ran on change and youth the first time and people were stoked!!! What about now? For you is it just, yeah we'll win cause Democrats always win, but whatever. I have no faith my candidate will make much of a difference.

Edited September 28, 2015 by greg775

[caulfield12]

Hey, this is not a rip on Hillary. Anybody who posts regularly here knows I despise her so I don't need to get word out on that. I did have a question in the Democratic thread, since you guys are going to win the Presidential election again IMO. And judging from my poll on God I assume we have a fairly Democratic board on Soxtalk, mostly all Demos/liberals. If I'm wrong, my bad.

 

I had a question to you Democrats and Republicans: Q-Partisan politics aside, does anything about your candidate excite you, or make you gung-ho, bursting with pride about being an American and the upcoming Presidential election? Is there anything about your candidate that makes you say, "Damn, these 4-8 years are gonna be great!!! I can't wait!!!" Just curious. In my case, no Republican candidate makes me feel that way and of course no democratic candidate.

So I wanted to see if you were as fatalistic about the future as I am. I mean Obama ran on change and youth the first time and people were stoked!!! What about now? For you is it just, yeah we'll win cause Democrats always win, but whatever. I have no faith my candidate will make much of a difference.

 

Before Obama, there was only Carter and then Clinton.

 

12 years of Dems, 28 years of GOP presidents....Nixon/Ford, Reagan, Bush, GW Bush.

 

So even with demographics seemingly in favor of the Dems, there's no overconfidence because of issues like Citizens United and the continued deterioration of labor groups/influence.

 

Not to mention the fact that Asians are going to be an even faster growing demo than Hispanics until 2065, and it's way too early to assume the GOP will continue to piss off/offend both and force the majority to the Dem side.

 

A young candidate like Rubio with charisma can carve off a lot of votes if he can only manage to articulate moderate or reasonable policies which appeal to both sides from the middle. Triangulation in Clinton vernacular. Can he get there from the right/Tea Party side without offending those same groups that put him in office, only time will tell.

 

I still can't imagine Sanders being electable, Trump...no way, so that leaves Rubio, Kasich and Christie. Kasich has the most experience, but he might have a little too much of that Carson soft-spoken/understated thing going. He's almost too reasonable. Would like to see more fire out of him but playing it close to the vest and watchingthe field implode around him has its merits as well.

Edited September 28, 2015 by caulfield12