Much of the media coverage today about candidates, especially the presidential level, is about personality and whether you’d want to “have a beer” with that person. However, what if the presidential race was much more like a competition where we never see the candidates in person nor hear them speak, we can only examine their record and decide who seems most competent. In fact, what if the records were anonymous and the identity only revealed once a decision had been made.
Sounds like the underpinnings of a new political reality show I should bankroll and produce. Unfortunately I don’t think it’ll happen but if someone steals my idea, here’s the post to prove it was my idea first.
On that note, parties and identities aside, who has the best record to run on in 2016? Chris Christie has a fairly mixed record in New Jersey. Recently, a study showed that New Jersey is dead last in fiscal solvency. However, Christie has done well reforming the state in terms of skyrocketing property taxes.
What about Hillary Clinton? She has a record as Senator from New York which is fairly weak based on the numbers. Some of her promises about jobs in western New York around the hard hit areas of Buffalo and Rochester never came to fruition. She blames President Bush for that. Then there’s her tenure as Secretary of State. What positive accomplishments does she have to point to?
Some commenters here point to Texas Governor Rick Perry as having a strong record on creating jobs and fostering economic growth in his state. However, Texas also has shortfalls as well in terms of fiscal solvency.
Most likely in picking a candidate based on their record, nobody gets an A+ but surely there are some candidates with report cards better than others.
