triangle.com | Home

I really don't know anything about her except for who her family is. I think it depends on what the state of NY wants. If they want to continue a legacy of Kennedy's in the senate, then she's the choice since Ted is like 100 years old.

I don't know what her positions are, so I don't know if she's right for the job.

If she's going to run on name recognition alone, she could win, but I think that is maybe the worst reason to vote for someone. And there's no accountability there since you just voted them in because of their name (which could theoretically change in which case, you'd have a reason to be upset, I guess).

People are saying she doesn't have the experience. It is said (though I haven't been able to Google a quote) that the founding fathers didn't intend for career politicians  to take over, but rather that citizens would serve a term or so then return to normal life. Whether or not we can attribute that to the founding fathers, I think that might be better than what we have now. We always say we want experience. Experience generally means career politician (become a lawyer, get some connections, spend the rest of your days trying to get re-elected, not serving the people). On the other hand, a "citizen legislature" as it's called, is a bit frightening as well- imagine a room full of any random person you meet on the road who flips you off or cuts you off or the people who stampeded into stores on Black Friday.I don't know what the solution is there.

I do think we should ask- is experience required or is it judgment, passion or advocacy for issues that are important to you? Are the requirements such as experience, judgment different for different offices- House, Senate, President, other?

For President, I think judgment is key since he is the only one; for House and Senate, there are many, not that judgment is not unimportant, but issues should be more important than "experience".

 If experience (being a career politician) is necessary, how would anyone get a foot in the door?