The FINANCIAL — As the 2016 presidential campaign begins to take shape, Washington experience has become less of a potential asset for those seeking the White House.
The FINANCIAL — As the 2016 presidential campaign begins to take shape, Washington experience has become less of a potential asset for those seeking the White House. A new national survey testing candidate traits finds that 30% would be less likely to support a candidate with “many years” of experience as an elected official in Washington, while 19% would be more likely to support such a candidate. About half (48%) say it would not matter if a candidate had long Washington experience, according to Pew Research Center.
By contrast, early in the 2008 presidential campaign, more than twice as many saw lengthy Washington experience as a positive than negative trait for a presidential candidate (35% more likely vs. 15% less likely).
A new national survey testing candidate traits finds that 30% would be less likely to support a candidate with “many years” of experience as an elected official in Washington, while 19% would be more likely to support such a candidate. About half (48%) say it would not matter if a candidate had long Washington experience, according to Pew Research Center.
By contrast, early in the 2008 presidential campaign, more than twice as many saw lengthy Washington experience as a positive than negative trait for a presidential candidate (35% more likely vs. 15% less likely).
A separate measure dating back to the late 1980s shows an even larger decline in the perceived value of Washington experience. The question asks which better prepares someone to be president – serving as a senator or member of Congress or as a state’s governor – and mentions possible advantages of each position. In the case of member of Congress, it would be acquiring experience in Washington and foreign policy; a governor is described as able to gain experience as head of an administration.
In 1987, 66% said experience as a member of Congress provided better preparation for the White House while just 22% said serving as governor was better preparation. In 2007, two decades later, congressional experience was still preferred by more than two-to-one (55% to 24%). But today, the public is divided: 44% say serving in Congress better prepares someone to be president while as many say experience as governor is better preparation, according to Pew Research Center.
Military service continues to rank as the most valuable asset for a presidential candidate among 16 traits and characteristics tested. Overall, 43% say military experience would make them more likely to support a presidential candidate, while just 4% say it would make them less likely; 53% say it wouldn’t matter in their vote. Military service also was the top attribute for presidential candidates early in the 2008 and 2012 campaigns.
Serving as a state governor and having experience as a business executive also continue to be seen as clear positives for candidates. A third say they would be more likely to support a governor compared with just 5% who would be less likely; experience as a business executive also is viewed as a net positive (33% more likely vs. 13% less likely). Majorities say experience as a governor and business executive would not matter to them, according to Pew Research Center.
On the other side of the ledger, not believing in God and never having held elected office before are the most negatively viewed traits of those tested. Just over half (53%) say they would be less likely to vote for someone who does not believe in God, while only 5% say this would make them more likely to support a candidate. And despite a decline in regard for extensive Washington experience, a presidential candidate who has never held any elected office would have little appeal: 52% say this would make them less likely to vote for a candidate compared with just 9% who say this would increase their likelihood of supporting a candidate.
The survey finds that at a time of increasing acceptance of homosexuality, most Americans (66%) say it candidate is gay or lesbian; 27% say they would be less likely to support a gay or lesbian candidate while 5% would be more likely. In 2007, nearly half (46%) said they would be less likely to vote for a homosexual candidate, according to Pew Research Center.
With Hillary Clinton a much talked about potential candidate in 2016, 71% of the public say it would not matter if a presidential candidate is a woman; 19% say they would be more likely to vote for a female candidate, while 9% would be less likely.
A higher percentage of women (24%) than men (14%) say they would be more likely to support a female candidate, though large majorities of both women and men say it wouldn’t matter.
But many liberal Democrats find the idea of a woman candidate appealing: 40% of liberal Democrats say they would be more likely to support a female presidential candidate, nearly double the share of conservative and moderate Democrats (23%). Among Republicans, about as many would be less likely (15%) as more likely (10%) to support a woman candidate; 74% of Republicans say it wouldn’t matter, according to Pew Research Center.
Discussion about this post