No thanks, Senator

[Nutmeg]

Honest question - why do standing Senators have a pretty long history of getting beaten in presidential elections? On the flip-side, the recent path to presidency appears to be as Governor. Correct me if I am wrong here, but elections since 1960 have looked a lot like this:

Senator Kennedy beats VP Nixon
President Johnson beats Senator Goldwater
Richard Nixon beats VP Humphrey
President Nixon beats Senator McGovern
Governor Carter beats President Ford
Governor Reagan beats President Carter
President Reagan beats Senator Mondale
VP Bush beats Governor Dukakis
Governor Clinton beats President Bush
President Clinton beats Senator Dole
Governor Bush beats VP Gore
This all may be coincidental. The only glaring difference that I can see is that as a standing Senator, you are going to have a very public record that is open to a lot of criticism. Take, for example, Kerry's record on Iraq. His explanations for what on the surface appear to be contradictions may be justified, but the average American doesn't have the time or interest in listening to those explanations. Any Senator whose been in office for a long period of time is going to have conflicting votes on any given issue for what may be rational reasons.

Governors, OTOH, kind of come out of nowhere. They don't have a national record. In a sense, they get to ambush the incumbent, because their record isn't exactly clear - and it certainly isn't in the mind of most Americans. They get to establish an agenda going forward without the burden of a conflicting history in their wake.

What do you guys think, and not in a smart-ass way, what implications do these recent results have for Senator Kerry?

[GringoTex]

The only glaring difference that I can see is that as a standing Senator, you are going to have a very public record that is open to a lot of criticism.
Another difference is that Governors have "chief of state" experience and know how to relate to the electorate as such.

[Chris M.]

Actually, you can keep going back further. Ike was a General. HST was briefly a Senator before being picked up as VP. I believe Roosevelt was Governor of NY, and on and on.

I think it is for the reasons you have given. The Senators that have successfully made the jump usually had very short Senatorial careers like Kennedy (6 years?).

There is also that "washington outsider" thing that is appealing when a Governor runs.

[argentine soccer fan]

Senator Kennedy beats VP Nixon
President Johnson beats Senator Goldwater
Richard Nixon beats VP Humphrey
President Nixon beats Senator McGovern
Governor Carter beats President Ford
Governor Reagan beats President Carter
President Reagan beats Senator Mondale
VP Bush beats Governor Dukakis
Governor Clinton beats President Bush
President Clinton beats Senator Dole
Governor Bush beats VP Gore


I don't buy it. I think it is coincidental.

I don't know much about Goldwater, but I think the other ones who lost were poor candidates who lost for reasons which had nothing to do with being senators.

BTW: Walter Mondale was VP when he ran.

[ThreeApples]

The only sitting senators ever elected president were Kennedy and Harding.

[Chicago1871]

America is one step away from electing a Hollywood star based almost solely on his likeability factor...oh wait. No wonder other countries don't like us/laugh at us. We're a political joke.

[superdave]

BTW: Walter Mondale was VP when he ran.
Um, Bush I was VP. Mondale was a former vice president.

[argentine soccer fan]

Um, Bush I was VP. Mondale was a former vice president.

You're right. Former VP.

[argentine soccer fan]

America is one step away from electing a Hollywood star based almost solely on his likeability factor...oh wait. No wonder other countries don't like us/laugh at us. We're a political joke.

If they don't like us, I think it has more to do with American power and wealth than with the fact that we may or may not be one step away from electing a Hollywood star.

[Yankee_Blue]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Mister John Kerry (pbuh) was once Lt Governor. Can someone verify/correct this?

[Chicago1871]

If they don't like us, I think it has more to do with American power and wealth than with the fact that we may or may not be one step away from electing a Hollywood star.
It all stems from the kind of people we have running for, and getting elected as, President.

[argentine soccer fan]

It all stems from the kind of people we have running for, and getting elected as, President.

Trust me, as someone who grew up in a country where American hatred has always been strong. Based on my experience, it has more to do with the wealth and power of the US. Who is elected president is a minor factor.

[Chicago1871]

Trust me, as someone who grew up in a country where American hatred has always been strong. Based on my experience, it has more to do with the wealth and power of the US. Who is elected president is a minor factor.
I'm not arguing with you on that point, becaus it's true. My point is that the US President impacts the world's view on the US.

[tpm]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Mister John Kerry (pbuh) was once Lt Governor. Can someone verify/correct this?
He was Lt. Gov in MA under Dukakis

[tpm]

[QUOTE=Nutmeg]Honest question - why do standing Senators have a pretty long history of getting beaten in presidential elections? On the flip-side, the recent path to presidency appears to be as Governor. Correct me if I am wrong here, but elections since 1960 have looked a lot like this:
[list]
Senator Kennedy beats VP Nixon
President Johnson beats Senator Goldwater
Richard Nixon beats VP Humphrey
President Nixon beats Senator McGovern
Governor Carter beats President Ford
Governor Reagan beats President Carter
President Reagan beats Senator Mondale
VP Bush beats Governor Dukakis
Governor Clinton beats President Bush
President Clinton beats Senator Dole
Governor Bush beats VP Gore
....................................
QUOTE]

Interesting to note that not only was JFK the last senator to be elected President, the VP (LBJ) was also a senator (senate majority leader). Note the similarity in that a Dem presidential candidate from MA chooses a southern senator to be his running mate (who was also his main competition for the nomination).

The senate is not exactly a training ground for leadership and decisiveness. It is a place for pontification. Just look at the senators who have run for president in the past 40 years: Dole, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale (edit: almost forgot Gore and his lockbox). They all were boring as milquetoast and Kerry fits in that mold. I think it's hard to shift gears after you've been in the senate for more than a couple of terms.

So how did JFK break out of the pack? Well, for one, being a senator was always just a stepping-stone, not a career move. He was a senator for a total of 6 years and was there just 2 years before his pop almost got him on the ticket in '56 at age 39. In '60, the Dems were coming off 2 disastrous elections with Stevenson as the nominee and were looking for a new face. Kennedy had more charisma in his famous hair than Stevenson did in his whole body. There was also a huge contrast between JFK and Nixon as well and the nation became captivated by Kennedy. The tv debates accentuated the difference.

And he still won in a squeaker.

[ThreeApples]

Looked up a little bit more on this issue. Besides Harding and Kennedy, 13 former senators have become president. James Buchanan was the only president who spent more than 10 years in the Senate. 9 of the 13 were Vice President or Secretary of State or both prior to their presidencies.

[tpm]

Looked up a little bit more on this issue. Besides Harding and Kennedy, 13 former senators have become president. James Buchanan was the only president who spent more than 10 years in the Senate. 9 of the 13 were Vice President or Secretary of State or both prior to their presidencies.

Interesting, especially the part about only one being a senator longer than 10 years. JFK still being the only senator to do it since the advent of the primary system.

[kal-el]

This George Will column touches on the topic of why Senators have a hard time getting elected president.

Kerry also is a casualty of nuance-itis, which is a kind of house mold prevalent in the north wing of the Capitol. Senators -- unlike governors, who often sharpen issues -- are forever blurring things to manufacture legislative majorities. Partly for that reason, senators rarely become presidents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24766-2004Sep15.html

It's not just a matter of voting records--although that's certainly a huge factor--it's also a matter of exhibiting a distinctive political persona. A senator is going to have a hard time doing this because of the inherent nature of legislative politics.

[Quaker]

James Buchanan was the only president who spent more than 10 years in the Senate.
Perhaps coincidentally, Buchanan is often considered the worst president in U.S. history.

[Casper]

Perhaps coincidentally, Buchanan is often considered the worst president in U.S. history.
That opinion is SO 1999.