Given that the vast majority of US Presidents have been either senators for states or governors of states, which do you think have made better Presidents?

Or, did I just think up a completely idiotic question?

My question is directed at more high-level erudite students & scholars of political "science".

I heard a rumour that soon-to-be ex (thankfully) President Trump intends to join this site. He thinks that his ice-bucket challenge vid should easily make him Wammer of the Day. In fact, he thinks that he has won already. "Fraud!" he will cry, should he not be so rewarded, "I was just ready to celebrate, when suddenly hundreds of hearts were clicked for someone else! My award has been stolen from me!"

Scholars of political science? Well my friend, never fear for you are looking at one (believe it or not) right here.

Unfortunately my Masters in Politics and International Relations doesn't help emphasise any belief from me other than... they're all the same practically. All give in to or serve the basic notions of American Exceptionalism (in their own roundabout and usually god awful ways). Reagan's time as governor sending cops to batter the fuck out of hippie students who occupied their garden centre probs didn't help him by the time he was the Alzheimer's President and had his foreign policy team illegally send money to the Contras that was illegally acquired from the Iranian hostage takers.

Likewise, Nixon's time in the Senate didn't help him foresee that recording himself ranting about how Jews control the media and drunkenly threatening to nuke the DPRK wouldn't exactly do wonders for his legacy (and that's discounting the bombing of Cambodia and his role in the Chilean Coup).

In conclusion, you're likely to get a barrel of shite either way. At least in terms of foreign policy anyhow which is what I study (Obama seems to get a more wholesome reputation these days than some of the other disasters mentioned but that didn't stop him from drone bombing weddings in Yemen or facilitating the Libyan coup which has now led to the reintroduction of slavery to the country), but some are better at their job as others (which may not be as good as it sounds). Mr Parenti has an interesting perspective of what may be considered failures and successes of US presidencies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQv7oNdAYhg&ab_channel=FORA.tv

I would say governors, because the role of a senator is more abstract. Governors have to actually run things and get things working. Mayors might be even better than senators, getting the busses running on time has a lot of value, maybe more than sitting in congress trying to stop the other party from passing anything.

In full disclosure, I may have been a little "high" when I wrote this poll question.
I immediately regretted it afterwards. So, also in full disclosure, I voted "Neither. Nobody cares." myself. But, I didn't know if there do exist voters who DO care, who really get into the minutiae of history. So, I was curious to hear their opinion.

Frankly, a more practical question would be a sliding scale, which you could slide continuously from 'myself' to 'others', with the question: how much do you vote based on what the candidate will do for you personally versus how much the candidate you feel will do for others?

Others means anyone other than the voter: it can mean foreign powers, people in other lands,
it can mean nonhuman animals.

I get sick & tired of hearing endlessly that "people vote ONLY for what personally benefits
themselves". Ok... from my gut feeling that sure sounds true. But, scientifically, I'd like evidence for that. I'd like to know HOW much.

HOW much? I think that is resoundingly impossible to tell due to the current technology available! I mean, sure - you can post a poll here (i'd be curious to see the results) but there is no safeguard to ensure you are getting total results. If you miss even one person, your poll is incomplete. if ONE person votes dishonestly, your poll is incomplete. People ONLY vote for what personally benefits themselves? Consider the many people that don't vote!

Consider all of the polls that said Hillary Clinton was going to be the first female President...


Consider how many farmers recently voted for DJT despite what the news media reports say about how the trade wars with China have hurt the farming community?

I did post this poll because I was wondering if certain candidates lost elections because they were "only Senators" rather than Governors. According to my poll so far, more people think ex-Governors make better Presidents than ex-Senators.

Finally tally: nobody cares or can't decide: 12
governors: 9
senators: 4

Clearly governors are preferred over senators about 2 to 1.
But, what about former reality tv-show hosts?
Should have made THAT an alternative, too.

So a TINY bit bit more of you DO care or at least can decide than not caring.
(Should have broken that alternative up into 2 separate alternatives:
nobody cars
can't decide
But it was my first poll. Wanted to try it out on the most dull boring non-controversial question possible.