In Whitman and Fiorina, Candidacies That Did Not Compute

[ProSense]

In Whitman and Fiorina, Candidacies That Did Not Compute

By JONATHAN WEBER

The candidates from Silicon Valley lost big in the California elections Tuesday. Meg Whitman, the former eBay chief executive, was trounced in the gubernatorial race despite spending more than $140 million of her own money, and Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard C.E.O., lost badly to one of the most liberal senators in the country in one of the most anti-liberal election years ever.

Both candidates had their weaknesses, but they join a long list of successful technology executives who have proved to be poor candidates for public office. (This year’s crop also included Chris Kelly, a former Facebook executive who was crushed in the Democratic primary in his bid for attorney general.) The culture of Silicon Valley, it seems, does not nurture the values and personal style that are essential for success in politics.

<...>

Technical brilliance, laser focus on business analytics, self-confidence bordering on arrogance and the willingness to work 80-hour weeks are hallmarks of successful Silicon Valley executives. Those traits may add up to charisma in Cupertino, but they don’t carry the day in Cucamonga. Ms. Whitman and Ms. Fiorina, with their corporate backgrounds, are not even very representative in this respect; it’s impossible to picture the most successful Valley entrepreneurs — Steve Jobs, say, or Larry Ellison — as politicians.

Candidates from Silicon Valley assume that Californians are proud of the global technological leadership that the Valley represents and admire the skills that make it possible. That’s true, but “Silicon Valley” is an abstraction — an idea and a symbol more than an actual place or even a specific industry. So when Ms. Whitman said in her ads that she was “from Silicon Valley,” it wasn’t clear what she meant. She didn’t grow up there, and most of her neighbors in Atherton didn’t even know her. In the end, the real meaning of that claim is “I’m from the technological elite” — and when you say it that way, you can easily see why it could be a political liability rather than an asset.

more

It didn't help that Whitman hired an undocumented immigrant, and then called for her deportation after being exposed.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. They lost because in their positions as CEO's,

they are surrounded by yes-people, people who tell them what they want to hear. That may work in business, but it doesn't work out on the hustings of politics.

Meg was never able to connect with ordinary folks; her money seemed to be the focus.

I could not be happier that they both lost.

[tularetom]

2. Fiorina and Whitman represent the destruction of the initiative

innovation and technical skills that put Silicon Valley on the map.

They don't have any kind of high tech background nor do they have any respect for the innovators that preceded them and and made it easy for them to move in and cut a fat hog in the ass even as they were crushing the spirit of discovery and invention within the companies they "ran".

We're not all geniuses here in CA but most of us do possess a pretty good bullshit detector. Boxer is the real deal and there was no way she was going to get booted in favor of a plastic corporate stooge. And while Jerry Brown is a bit more tightfisted than what I'd prefer, there was no way, voters were going to vote for the condescending, annoying personally unattractive Whitman.

The failure of these rich doofuses to get elected will not deter other wealthy clowns from throwing their money away in a vain attempt to buy some respect. But it is heartening to know that at least in one state voters aren't buying that crap.

[vaberella]

3. Didn't Boxer and Brown push Dem successes in the elections and...

make Fiorina and Whitman seem disconnected to Californians and extreme right?

[ProSense]

4. Good stuff:

"Fighting for Jobs" - TV Ad Featuring President Obama (Video)

[LiberalFighter]

5. Did they really work 80 hour weeks? Or were those inflated hours

where they included the hours it took to get to work... travel to business conferences... etc.

[Ikonoklast]

7. Those "80 hour work weeks" have been largely debunked.

Anyone that tells you that, especially those that do not punch a time clock and have no external monitor on hours actually worked, is usually lying.


It has been proven by many different studies, mostly done by the DoD, of the degradation of both physical and mental capabilities after being on duty for long hours.

After right around fifty hours, most people lose one-third of their effectivenes; and after sixty hours, one-half, and the error rate skyrockets and productivity plummets after seventy hours.

If someone says they 'work' eighty hours a week, they are doing a crappy job of it.

[LiberalFighter]

11. I have never heard of a study or anything to refute the 80 hour work week before.

It would be nice to have a breakdown of the hours for a typical CEO and other upper management personnel. And I guess for those that are supposedly in the upper echelon.

[karynnj]

6. Some technology people win - Frank Lautenberg started ADP

Difference - he is a liberal, who cares for people - and still speaks of growing up with a father who worked in the Patterson silk mills. Their lack of safety standards led to health problems for workers. Laughtenberg once told a group of Democrats that it is knowing that which has made him an advocate of unions and an advocate of regulations.

In addition - he - unlike them - is a nice person.

[mulsh]

8. cookie cutter MBA toting Corp drones,

I think both candidates lost because most folk have worked around and intensely disliked people exactly like these two failures. Also, they were able to spout mindless talking points about running government more like a business but gave no real and concrete ideas of how to go about that.

BTW did you ever notice that there are distinctly different definitions of the words "government" and "business" in our dictionaries? ever wonder why this is so.

[K8-EEE]

9. Never met one person-even those voting for her, that liked Meg

The few I know who were voting for her were just Repukes who had to Beat Jerry The Big Scary Socialist. EVEN THEY COULDN'T STAND HER! One guy told me "we have to take down Brown because he's an extreme leftist but I don't look forward to hearing her voice for the next four years if she wins."

There were people voting against Jerry but I swear, Meg had no supporters to speak of outside her own clique. I've never seen anything like it. Even Bush, McCain, Palin have their rabid supporters but this woman couldn't BUY a friend. MOST UNLIKABLE CANDIDATE EVER.

[denimgirly]

10. "..the most anti-liberal election years ever." --- Uhh, 99% were re-elected! It was the BLUE DOGS

that got desimated....So it was an anti-blue-dog election where more than half were wiped out.
Only 2-3 liberals lost their seat...the rest were re-elected.

[Jennicut]

12. They were too extreme for CA and thought they could buy their elections.