Why the need to run a Senator for President?

[NNguyenMD]

Last time a Democratic Senator won the presidency was Johnson. Is it because they have better campaigning experience? As red state as this may sound, I don't think it would be crazy to try our hand at running more Governors, Congressmen, former prominent cabinet members or Generals in the primaries.

Though if Boxer ran she would have my vote in a heart beat.

[Obviousman]

1. Around here, it is probably because senators

have the most name recognition. While the governor of state x might be a good candidate, people dont know much about him because he's not on the national scene

[rodeodance]

5. Senators also gen. have a long voting record that can be used against

them.=====witness the last election!! Not good--in general ot run a Senator.

[Obviousman]

6. i agree

but they do have better name recognition

[Tacos al Carbon]

2. Carter is still eligible

I mean, if Mondale can run for Senate in Minnesota ...

[The Sheik]

3. Because everybody looks at Senators with that genuine ga-ga-grandpa view.

[MrPrax]

4. Great point...

But why break with 'tradition'?

Dukasis was a Gov, Clinton was a Gov, what about McGovern, Mondale or Humphries?

Seems the Dems mix it up enuff to keep everyone guessing...including Dems

[jmowreader]

7. We'd be better off if we STOPPED running Senators

The last two Democratic presidents were Jimmy Carter, a Southern governor who never held national office, and Bill Clinton, who had the same political background. (Their prepolitical backgrounds couldn't be more different.)

The last two Democratic candidates were Al Gore and John Kerry--both Senators. Both lost to a Southern governor who had never held national office before becoming governor--admittedly, the same Southern governor, but still!

Senators lose, sir, and they lose for three very specific reasons:

* Senators work as part of a team--the 100-person team that is the Senate. This means that no Senator has a record of individual accomplishment. A Senator may have written 100 good laws that were passed easily, but he or she didn't pass those laws alone--and if you're running against an incumbent president, any of those 100 good laws are going to be claimed by the incumbent as "his."

* Senators have easily-malleable records. We all know that a law is generally a mishmash of whatever they feel like throwing in there. If Senator Smith votes aye on a bill that's 99 percent good and 1 percent not-so-good, the opposition is going to advertise that Senator Smith voted for the one bad thing. Hell, you could write a bill freepers would love, one that gives every member of the Republican Party a free lifetime nationwide hunting/fishing license, allows you to deduct bird dogs from your taxes, eliminates bag limits on migratory waterfowl and declares Dale Earnhard's birthday to be a federal holiday and the right wing would be up in arms because you also implemented a 10-cent-per-box wildlife conservation tax on ammunition.

* Flip-floppin'. Senator Gray voted for a tax reduction because it was in a good bill. He voted against a tax reduction because it was in a bad bill. He voted for a tax increase because it was a very small part of a fantastic bill, and voted against one because it was a very large part of a horrid bill. Guess what Senator Gray is? A flip-flopper. You got it.

I don't like the idea of running congressmen or cabinet members either--congressmen are subject to the same problems senators have, and cabinet members are tied to the president they supported. Example of the last: Erskine Bowles. He was Clinton's chief of staff. He was kicking Richard Burr's ass until Burr decided to tie Bowles to Clinton. Now it's Senator Burr.

Governors are our best hope. Mike Easley in NC is supposed to be a potential contender next time.

[housewolf]

8. In the entire history of our country...

only 2 people have been elected to the presidency directly from the senate - Wm. G. Harding and John F. Kennedy.

Some others who moved from the senate into the vice presidency or other positions have been elected to the presidency, but only two who were currently-serving senators were elected into the presidency. MANY have tried. Only a few even with the nomination. Only two have ever made it, none in the past 40+ years.

Governors have better chances.

[bookman]

9. I agree

I almost posted that to another thread. In fact I think Kennedy was the last Democratic Senator, Johnson was President for a year and Veep before that.

Governors have worked best.

[rzemanfl]

10. Why not take a page from the Republican playbook? Find the

dumbest of the Democratic Governors, run him for President, have him say a lot of stupid shit and then steal the damn election.

[More Than A Feeling]

11. At this point, I'd almost be willing to try that.

Hey, our dumbest is better than their dumbest, any day of the week!

[WillowTree]

12. If you'll recall, President Johnson...

....wasn't elected to the presidency as a Senator. He ascended to the presidency when Kennedy was killed and was re-elected in '64. And if he had won the Democratic nomination in 1960, it's questionable whether would have beaten Nixon.

Among the reasons why Governors have historically had more success at being elected to the Presidency than Senators of either party, particularly long-standing Senators, is that they are perceived as being more experienced in executive processes, in running things, whereas Senators' legislative experience doesn't seem to translate in that manner in the minds of many voters. "Senators are debaters, not managers", or some such thing. As we know, that doesn't always hold true.