2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Eddie Teach]

Didn't we have a quote from Bill here recently saying that she was objectively more qualified than he?

She was more qualified than Obama. Didn't do her much good, did it.

[mongers]

Without Bill, she'd have been a successful lawyer or a minor government official.

Why do you think that?

Statistics.

What are the odds that two people who both have what it takes to become the 1 in 100 million type of whatever that gets people elected to POTUS happen to run into and marry one another prior to them both becoming POTUS?

Compare that to the odds that in fact one of the two people is just some person who gets to be POTUS because they are married to a successful ex-POTUS.
hat he is likely yo be

And the same could be said for father and son teams ?

[Eddie Teach]

And the same could be said for father and son teams ?

Nobody's arguing otherwise, except perhaps the most ardent of JQ Adams fanboys.

[Berkut]

Without Bill, she'd have been a successful lawyer or a minor government official.

Why do you think that?

Statistics.

What are the odds that two people who both have what it takes to become the 1 in 100 million type of whatever that gets people elected to POTUS happen to run into and marry one another prior to them both becoming POTUS?

Compare that to the odds that in fact one of the two people is just some person who gets to be POTUS because they are married to a successful ex-POTUS.
hat he is likely yo be

And the same could be said for father and son teams ?

Absolutely.

I hate that we keep electing people who have relationships to other political figures. It is just an obvious flag that the electorate isn't actually evaluating suitability or qualification.

[Berkut]

Didn't we have a quote from Bill here recently saying that she was objectively more qualified than he?

I don't think Bill is an objective source for that information.

[mongers]

Without Bill, she'd have been a successful lawyer or a minor government official.

Why do you think that?

Statistics.

What are the odds that two people who both have what it takes to become the 1 in 100 million type of whatever that gets people elected to POTUS happen to run into and marry one another prior to them both becoming POTUS?

Compare that to the odds that in fact one of the two people is just some person who gets to be POTUS because they are married to a successful ex-POTUS.
hat he is likely yo be

And the same could be said for father and son teams ?

Absolutely.

I hate that we keep electing people who have relationships to other political figures. It is just an obvious flag that the electorate isn't actually evaluating suitability or qualification.

I don't disagree and it's rather sad a proportion of the electorate can't reason that someone is just trading on their name.

[Caliga]

Absolutely.

I hate that we keep electing people who have relationships to other political figures. It is just an obvious flag that the electorate isn't actually evaluating suitability or qualification.

Agree.  In fact, I seem to recall that we fought a revolution in part to get rid of dynastic rule.

[Valmy]

Agree.  In fact, I seem to recall that we fought a revolution in part to get rid of dynastic rule.

Unfortunately, unlike George III, elected dynasts are more than powerless figureheads

[Sheilbh]

Absolutely.

I hate that we keep electing people who have relationships to other political figures. It is just an obvious flag that the electorate isn't actually evaluating suitability or qualification.

I think in the modern era the electorate more or less always get it right.

But also I think dynasticism's the fault of the elites. They have the advisors, the hacks, the donors and all the rest in place by family contacts. Which is particularly essential in the US system.

[garbon]

I don't necessarily see a problem with it though. I certainly had more of an inclination and drive towards pharma as it was something that I was raised on at the dinner table and communications with family friends. Does that make me less qualified to work in pharma?

[Berkut]

I don't necessarily see a problem with it though. I certainly had more of an inclination and drive towards pharma as it was something that I was raised on at the dinner table and communications with family friends. Does that make me less qualified to work in pharma?

If your ability to get a job in pharma was based on some election by a bunch of people who are not really qualified to evaluate how good you might actually be at the job, and instead just go by the idiotic idea that since your dad was a pharmacist, you can do the job as well, then yeah, that might be an issue.

[garbon]

I don't necessarily see a problem with it though. I certainly had more of an inclination and drive towards pharma as it was something that I was raised on at the dinner table and communications with family friends. Does that make me less qualified to work in pharma?

If your ability to get a job in pharma was based on some election by a bunch of people who are not really qualified to evaluate how good you might actually be at the job, and instead just go by the idiotic idea that since your dad was a pharmacist, you can do the job as well, then yeah, that might be an issue.

Well 1, how do you know they are voting like that? I didn't vote for Hillary simply because she had been Bill's wife (maybe on some level in spite of).

Besides, I'm not sure I see a negative in your scenario - apart from needing to know whether or not I've had some experience in the pharmacy or something similar (like field of study, internships, activities). After all, there is some indications that I'll could have a better understanding by most similar people my age applying for a first job in pharma - as well as relevant contacts and individuals to call upon when I need an opinion*.

*as has actually been the case in my career.

[Admiral Yi]

We know that name recognition is a big mover in politics.

[garbon]

Also, if you are positing an electorate that is not qualified to evaluate how someone will perform in a role, then why is familial/personal ties any worse than going for the individual who is the most physically attractive, the most oratorically gifted or the one with the most popular-minded platform?

[garbon]

We know that name recognition is a big mover in politics.

Sure but in the case of Hillary Clinton, she's also been a named/known person since the early 90s. Now she came to fame because of her husband's presidency but it isn't like that's the only thing we know about her now - 2 decades later.