What does the management of their campaign say about a candidate?

Am I the only one tired of "questions" that are just a way of making a one-sided statement and then adding a question mark at the end?



So here is a question that is not for or against any particular candidate.



In terms for management - handling of budgets, the press and organizing and managing people - what does it say about a candidate? If someone runs a great campaign does it automatically mean they will be a good public servant? If a campaign is poorly run, is it a sign of things to come if that person is elected?What does the management of their campaign say about a candidate?
You are on the right track.



Generally a competent person chooses those who work for them competently. They look for someone who is knowledgeable, organized, and is a team player. When you throw politics into the situation, you have to add that the people has to support the party and the politician's platform.



A campaign that is in disarray is a sign of a candidate who did not competently choose competent people. This would have long-term effects should that candidate be elected.



Often-times people are admired and respected from a distance. However, once the person is observed up close the supporter becomes disenchanted - finding the candidate really is human.
THE PAID REPULICAN STRATEGISTS IN THIS FORUM WILL NOT ANSWER THISWhat does the management of their campaign say about a candidate?
I really do think it's indicative of how they'd perform in the White House.
Well I'd say that how one manages his or her campaign is an indicator of how they would manage the office of President.What does the management of their campaign say about a candidate?
well the campaigns are the closest things to actual corporations any of them have ever run.



Obama is the clear winner here since he has raised by far the most money (more than both clinton and mccain combined) and he has gotten way more donors unlike clinton who put all her eggs in just a few rich donors baskets, so to speak



Obama has managed to run an "enterprise" of nearly $200 million dollars and it has been nothing but bigger and bigger since day one



McCain blew through $15 million last spring in 2 months and went broke and had to fire his whole staff, i remember seeing him going to new hampshire coming off a plane, dragging his own lugage after leaving his coach seat, pretty bad, he has actaully had so few donors this year (Obama averages more in 2 weeks then McCain has gotten all spring) that he really doesnt seem to have a chance this fall



but Hillary gets the prize as loser in my book becuase she blew through close to $100 million buy Super Tuesday and found out on wednesday that she was dead broke and had to borrow millions from herself just to keep going and is two months behind for paying the health care insurance for her staffers
The President chooses people to run her/his activities.

The candidate chooses people to run her/his campaign.

What do you think?

Thanks for making the point- l hadn't thought of that.
Wow! I love your question! I would have to say that there is one particular candidate who is running a very organized, well-funded, well-budgeted, clean, trying to steer clear of the slander and smear tactics but unfortunately continue to be forced upon him by his opponents so he is forced to address their slander and hate, and that one is Obama.



I think it has been his motivation and intention to run a clean campaign but it has not been the case of Hillary and well, McCain is a Bushmonger and has been not raising much money, the less of the two democratic candidates.



Obama has done a great job and though he is not perfect he is simply the best for our Country.



Thank you for your question.
Serious questions are difficult to answer with a snappy one liner.



The management of the campaign is usually relied upon a candidates trusted adviser. They end up being painted as the brains behind the man but it's an ability of the adviser to recognize and avoid up coming pit falls.