In most fields of work, we look at the quantitative results of employees. It’s becoming very difficult to find a field that doesn’t, even in teaching, which we know involves matters that just can’t be quantified. The world of politics is different in that it often relies on rhetoric, vision, and inspiration. In other words, what do the candidates say and how excited are people about the way they communicate those ideas. Seldom do we look at the actual numbers of their career, which in some cases alone would disqualify most job applicants in other fields. We get caught up in the hoopla of the campaigns, but how about those numbers?

Starting with the two leading Democratic contenders, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, let’s look at what they’ve achieved by the numbers.

Biden sponsored a total of 1071 bills and 28 became law. That is the most of any of the Democratic candidates for president. Sanders is in second place with 917 sponsored bills, but only 3 of his bills became law.

When it comes to cosponsoring bills, Sanders takes the cake. Sanders cosponsored a whopping 6,077 bills to Biden’s 3,374. However, Biden’s success rate is once again superior, especially considering the ratio of bills supported. Biden helped 320 become law, while Sanders only had 217. Having nearly 50% more cosponsored bills doesn’t matter if the success rate is less than your opponent.

So what about the other candidates who have Congressional records of making and passing laws? It’s really Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota who stands out as the hardest working member of Congress. In her twelve years in the U.S. Senate, she has sponsored almost as many bills as Sanders has in twenty-eight years. She has also cosponsored close to what Biden cosponsored in his thirty-six years in Congress. Klobuchar is statistically the most accomplished candidate for president in Congress by the number of successfully sponsored bills in the time she’s been in office. That says a lot about her work ethic. She is also a tough debater with a great voting record. Yet at this moment she is still at the lower end of the polls.

How are people determining their choice of candidate? Is it voice? Vision? Passion? Is it their look? Some kind of celebrity status? Reputation?

Voice, vision, and passion are important in a presidential campaign. The nominee needs those if they are to compete with a sitting president, even a Nixonian one. But is that all we’re looking for now? What about experience?

Experience was something that was fought over in the 2008 primary. Hillary Clinton pointed to what she thought was Barack Obama’s lack of experience. She accused him of just peddling words and giving good speeches. Yet Senator Obama passed 2 sponsored bills into law and 29 cosponsored bills into law in just four years. He was also responsible for dozens of state laws in Illinois as a state senator for the previous eight years. Before that he was a Constitutional law professor and community organizer. That doesn’t sound like someone who is inexperienced. Oddly enough, Clinton had not yet passed any of her 3 successfully sponsored bills in Congress and she had already been in office for double the time of Obama. The winner of the 2008 primary would go on to face the more experienced John McCain. Perhaps that’s where the argument for quality over quantity comes in.

In 2016, experience was turned against the experienced. The now more experienced Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was smeared as the problem as the Republican candidate framed his lack of government experience as a strength. The argument was made that now we needed an outsider without political experience. We know now that’s not exactly turning out to be a great situation. But I’m not sure that means the Democrats should nominate the one with the loudest voice or best look.

Take Robert “Beto” O’Rourke who has been praised for his voice and look. He had a quick stint as a Representative from the House before he resigned from running for re-election so he could run for the bigger seat of the U.S. Senate against Ted Cruz. When he lost that senate seat he decided to use his personal wealth to travel around the country on a pre-campaign for his campaign for president, riding out any buzz his senate campaign had generated. The problem is he does not have much to show for in numbers. O’Rourke passed just one sponsored bill into law in his six years and it was to name a courthouse.

Both Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have surged in the polls to the top five. They have enormous voice, courage, passion, and vision for the country. Their experience in law before coming to politics counts for something, but their Congressional numbers are low. Warren has racked up 45 cosponsored bills that went into law and Harris has cosponsored 13 successful ones, which is pretty good, considering they’re up against a Republican majority. But both have failed to pass a single sponsored bill into law in their time as senator. Warren had 325 chances and none of them made it through. Note that hundreds of bills by Democrats were passed in that same time period, even with Republican control of Congress.

Yet both Harris and Warren are doing better in the polls than Cory Booker, who has been in office the same amount of time as Warren. Booker has already surpassed Obama’s Senate success with 2 sponsored successful bills and 36 cosponsored bills that passed into law.

Tulsi Gabbard, also now in her seventh year in the House, has several more successful cosponsored bills than Booker, yet she is behind him in the polls.

How much do these numbers really matter? That’s going to be up to the voters, but I’d like to think accomplishments should matter.

Challenging judge nominations. Voicing dissent to the president’s actions. Making important votes. Those are very important duties of a senator or representative. But their main duty is to craft bills, persuade others to vote for them, and get them passed into law to make change. That’s governance.

It’s no coincidence that low performing members of Congress have not done so well up against governors with executive experience in the past. But this time we’re seeing governors fail to jumpstart their campaigns out of the gate. Only one candidate in the 2020 race has both experience as a senator and governor, yet he’s also struggling to gain traction against the bigger names in this race. Current Washington Governor Jay Inslee has a previous sixteen-year record in Congress. His success rate is statistically better than Biden and Sanders; he even passed two more sponsored bills than Sanders, but he does not have the nation-wide name recognition the others have.

Mayors Pete Buttigieg and Bill de Blasio, Governors John Hickenlooper and Steve Bullock, author Marianne Williamson, and businessman Andrew Yang are the outliers that don’t have Congressional experience. Do they have a chance of being the nominee? Probably not, but to compare their success to the candidates with Congressional experience seems to compare apples and oranges. Getting that contrast right is going to require more examination.

Voice and passion are driving the early poll numbers, but experience will be what the Democrats struggle with one another over.

Experience matters. Without some valid experience, all we have is rhetorical fluff and campaign slogans. Of course, without vision, voice, and passion, experience fails to attract voters. It’s a balance the final 2020 nominee will have to find if she or he is to rise to the top of the field.