Senators as Presidential Candidates
by RonChusidIt has been noted more times than Kerry supporters want to acknowledge that Governors have been more successful in running for President. While true, I wouldn’t let this be a decisive factor in deciding upon 2008 candidates.
One problem with this analysis is that we are dealing with a very small sample size, and each election is decided by multiple factors. Being a Senator was often not the deciding factor in the case of many losing candidates. Many of the recent Senators running for President have been running against a sitting President, which is generally an uphill battle. In recent years this included John Kerry, Bob Dole, Walter Mondale, and George McGovern.
Yes, it is true that three former Governors did beat sitting Presidents recently, but each was under unusual circumstances. Gerald Ford did not have the usual advantages of incumbency, and was running under the shadow of Watergate. Jimmy Carter was faced with two obstacles to reelection–the hostages in Iran and an unusually effective campaigner in Ronald Reagan. George Bush Sr. was elected only due to Ronald Reagan’s popularity. As he subsequently became one of the worst Presidents in American history, foreshadowing his son’s terms in office, it is not surprising that he was beaten by a Democrat who matched Reagan in charisma.
Historical factors reduce the long term significance of this trend. Until the 17th amendment was passed in 1913, Senators were appointed rather than being elected. It is possible that the lack of experience in running for a major office placed them at a disadvantage compared to Governors. In eras when the federal government was smaller and foreign policy concerns were not as great, a Governor also seemed the more obvious choice over someone from a legislative body. This is no longer the case. For example, while Howard Dean would be an excellent choice for running any state’s Medicaid program, John Kerry showed far more understanding of national health care policy and the Medicare program. Similarly I listened to a recent health care symposium with Mark Warner and did not feel he approached the expertise of John Kerry (or any other Senator involved in health care policy) on national programs. The difference in expertise between Senators and Governors might be even more important politically over national security issues. Many question if Bill Clinton could have been elected after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and I also note that his wife chose the Senate as her next step in hopes of returning to the White House.
Perhaps the most important factor which changes the disadvantage of a Senator is the nature of current campaigns. There is no doubt that there were disadvantages to being a Senator with hundreds of votes ready for misinterpretation. Often the meaning of a vote is completely different from what would appear from a brief description, as we saw with the Iraq War Resolution vote. It is easy for an opponent to take votes for or against a final budget to claim that a Senator supported or opposed everything in the final budget. Different circumstances and different details in different bills make it easy to fabricate charges of flip flopping.
What has changed is that Governors are no less subject to such political attacks. The Dukakis campaign showed what could be done to a Governor. Future Governors running will have every decision ever made scrutinized by opposition researches and spread on the internet and by friendly media. There was good reason why both George Bush and Howard Dean sealed many of their records. If there isn’t enough unfavorable material in the record, that no longer matters. The most harmful attacks on John Kerry coming from the Swift Boat Liars had nothing to do with his Senate record. Similar lies can (and most likely will) be fabricated against any candidate.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to a Senator is the opposition to a Washington insider although this would not explain why former Vice Presidents, many of whom had been former Senators) were successful in being elected. This is likely to be a bigger obstacle to Senators from the party in power. While some Republican Senators might have a tougher time in 2008, unless they have successfully cultivated a reputation as an outsider, a Democrat who is known for criticizing the Republicans in power might have an easier time. It is no coincidence that the last Democrat to be elected from the Senate was John Kennedy, beating a Republican after eight years of Republican rule. Perhaps another Senator JFK from Massachusetts will repeat this on a second attempt.
Filed under: John Kerry, Politics | Get Permalink or trackback |
Excellent Ron. Really great analysis. There’s even more reasons why being a Senator is not a hindrance. For one thing, Mondale had been VP before he ran for office in 1984. Anybody with McGovern’s views, regardless of the office they held, probably would’ve lost in 1972 (same for Senator Goldwater in 1964). In fact, has there ever been a Senator who lost a pres. election mainly due to their Senate votes (or twisting of them)?
The other thing to keep in mind is that a number of Senators have been governors, lieutennant governors, or other executives before they became Senators (Remember Lt. Gov Kerry from 1982-84)?
Also, from McKinley in 1896 to the present day, there have been 19 presidents. While its true only 2 were Senators when elected (Harding and JFK), only 6 were governors at the time of election (Wilson, FDR, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Dubya). The rest were Vice-Presidents or former VPs, generals, or cabinet members at the time of their election as president. What’s more, Wilson, Clinton and Dubya did NOT win a majority of the vote in their initial election as president. Carter only got 50.3% in 1976 and Reagan only got 50.7% in 1980. Only in the case of FDR (running in 1932 when unemployment was at an all time high of 25%) did a governor win a solid majority of the popular vote.
Nick,
There’s so much which could be said about with a small sample size. The issue really gets cloudy when you do consider that most Presidential candiates have had more than one position. Senators haven’t done well running from the Senate, but have done much better if they went on to become VP. Unless the move up due to the death (or resignation) of the President, recent Vice Presidents have done better after they’ve been out of office than running directly after being VP. Historically cabinet members and generals have done well, but in my lifetime we’ve had only one general and no cabinet members.
Ultimately this all shows that other factors must be considered and we should not rule someone out due to being in the Senate. We have no track record for former first ladies. I guess that if we were to go by history, Gore would be our best bet as a VP who has been out of office, but that is no way to make such a decision.
Ron
Excellant analysis. I hope you sent this around.
I agree with your point about a small sample. My point, which I admit I didn’t do the best job of articulating, was that the theories of folks in the media (and other psuedo-intellectual places like dKos) about who can be elected president don’t hold water, even accepting the too small samples they use for arguements sake.
Psuedo intellectual — LOL!
I have been accused of being a pseudo-intellectual, in writing, by a woman who was
probably psychotic according to my psychologist.
Pseudo is a bit strong for most situations. I prefer amateur. Amateurs can be as good as a professional – just without some of the creditentials and pay. And their arguments can be full of holes big enough for the truck.
One of the best statistical analysts I keep going back to is Ruy Teixeira on
/www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/
(Checkout the one on ’08 speculation)
I think Nick and Ron do some equally good analyses. And remember Charles Riggs’ III posts during the election? Wish he would get back with us.
I’m ususally willing to listen to loose cannon/ tin foil ideas in case they have a grain of truth in the chaff. Even people who are having trouble articulating their argument may create a light bulb in someone else’s brain that illuminates the real problem, question , issue. Ultimately, that’s what discussion, dialogue, and debate are about.
What I would hope we could move to is more civil, constructive speech that does not
promote using “free speech means you should say ANYTHING” notion or any degree of the “Let’s kick out all the people who say things against America” delusion. Ultimately, none of us are completely right or wrong in what we think and say. The key is to keep this in mind when we listen to someone or speak. Keep looking for anything that will help focus the discussion into a clearer picture. (Which is why I keep simmering some of Wise Ass and following TDD, it helps refocus some ideas in better words)
Ron is probably very familiar with what happens when you listen to a patient who is clearly fearful based on a lot of ignorance; if you let them express those concerns, acknowledge them and the give them the information they need to overcome their fear,
their minds open like parachutes.
Oh, I just remembered this. Well I can’t remember her name but I read a book review that described the author as a “Public” intellectual. Someone who independently took time to study a problem and write about it so others could have a reasonable knowledge base to make decisions on.
It went right with the story of a major newspaper editor who took a year’s sabbatical.
According to the article, he essentially walked into a New York City public library and spent the year there.
If I could do that at The Tattered Cover with $$$ it would be Heaven on earth.
Ginny
Somehow I don’t see dKos as one of those pseudo types. Most everyone at the BBQ yesterday was on that level however.
Pamela,
This strikes me as sort of a labeling because of labeling problem. If there was less
name calling, labeling and stone throwing in our internal discussions, we could spend more time on listening and articulating carefully . What goes around….
I’m sorry to hear it was so prevalent at the BBQ. Do we get a report?
Ginny
No labeling at the BBQ. Everyone there was articulate, intellectual and witty. Wrong use of psuedo, not thinking clearly. I posted something in another thread last night about it. Will check whcih thread.
Ginny
Copy and paste from my earlier post night about the BBQ:
I attended an LA area bloggers BBQ today. It was very interesting…
I don’t want to post a thread about today, so I will share some observations here for everyone to read.
I was surprised and happy to note that everyone had positive thoughts and comments about JK. A lot of sadness about the general outcome but no blame for JK as we see so often in the blogosphere. The general consensus seemed to be that whatever faults with the campaign itself, Kerry would be supported again.
The other interesting note was that the majority of those there do not think highly of a blog I shall not name. Everyone was proud to be a liberal, most considered themselves liberals before progressives, and all seemed to agree that it’s important to be mutually supportive and get more of our voices out there into the mainstream. I met some very wonderful, talented people who were all a pleasure to speak with.
Among those attending were Jane from FireDogLake, Joseph and Alex from Martini Republic, Steve our host from SteveAudio Blog, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum, Brian Linse, TBogg, RJ Eskow, Scoobie, Mark Kleiman, Leah from Corrente, Ellen Nagler from TheNewPolitics.com and Arianna Huffington and Michael Owen from the Huffington Post.
It didn’t stop him from winning in 2004. I’m with the 7,000,000 stolen votes crowd.