Freshman Senate terms do not always accurately predict the tenor of a candidate's presidency

You should be rather disappointed on some level with our major candidates' Senate records. To some extent, all of them have ducked controversy, voted with the crowd, or voted for bad legislation while claiming to have grave misgivings about how the bill might be used if passed. It's bad and frustrating behavior, but absolutely de rigueur for any freshman Senator. What concerns me is the people who claim the ability to perfectly extrapolate those Senate term shortcomings into the likely shortcomings of a future presidential term. It doesn't necessarily work that way.

JFK is the preeminent example of this phenomenon. He voted for the Civil Rights Act, yet also voted for an amendment that undermined all the accountability for its violators. Several prominent segregationists were early supporters of his campaign. He was uncomfortably connected to unsavory characters, including Joe McCarthy. RFK worked on Joe's subcommittee, some relation was even dating the guy, and his lack of active opposition to McCarthy during the debate for censure and at other times led liberal stalwarts such as Eleanor Roosevelt to be very pissed off at him (though he was in the hospital for part of this period). How might DUers react to that sort of information at the time?

Yet despite the later mythologizing of his presidential term into something greater than what it was, it was still far superior to anything you would expect from his Senate career. And one reason for this is very simple: the presidency provides more power and the opportunity to exercise more isolated leadership. In the Senate, a freshman is not going to be a great mover and shaker, and undue influence is exercised from more entrenched powers in the body, such as lobbyists, party leadership, and local reelection concerns. With the presidency, most of those influences are more diffuse and less powerful, and the office-holder has far more ability to dictate policy direction as opposed to being forced to respond to one of two bad options.

This doesn't excuse a weak and vacillating Senate term. No Senator should behave in such a way, and being a first-termer is no excuse. What it does mean is that all those people who have predicted a candidate's possible presidential term will resemble his or her Senate term should remind themselves that it doesn't always work out that way. Being able to influence policy beyond "yes" or "no" and having fewer fetters attached in terms of making isolated and personal decisions can make a big difference.

You're absolutely right. The truth is that experience is often NOT a great predictor of future success. I fully understand the desire to use experience as a measure of leadership, but voters should be aware that it's still not a perfect predictor.

There was nothing to suggest greatness from the records of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Lincoln was a very gifted orator and very obviously intelligent lawyer, but he had virtually no administrative or political experience. His one term in the House of Representatives was controversial and he didn't even run for a second term. He was out of politics for years and only became the Republican nominee because he had become a prominent speaker in the wake of his failed 1858 Senate campaign and because Republican bigwigs couldn't decide who among them should be nominated.

FDR had a decent term as governor, but it wasn't truly remarkable, and he only served for 3 1/2 years before being nominated for president. He was derided by many within his party -- and many liberals -- as an intellectual lightweight and, though personable on the campaign trail, very cold as a person.

Presidential leadership is a very difficult thing to gauge at times. We should pick who we honestly believe to be the best candidate running, but be aware that appearances can be deceiving and we'll never truly know who will become "great" until they get the job.

But since the chance is always there for a president to transcend a lackluster previous record, I think some of the utter despair is not necessarily warranted. There is huge cause for concern based on the past records of all the candidates, but it shouldn't overwhelm one to the point of believing neither GE candidate is capable of progressive policy in officer--we have an infinitely better chance with the Democrat in this election.