bachanon Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 i remembered somewhere that senators rarely become president. david broder in a 2002 column explains why. if applying these parameters to our current election, it narrows the field quite a bit. Why Few Senators Become PresidentsBy David S. BroderSunday, June 23, 2002; Page B07Once again the Senate is full of presidential wannabes. Three Democrats, John Edwards of North Carolina, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, are out most weekends, cultivating friends in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and wooing contributors everywhere. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut reportedly are weighing the possibility of joining the chase. And the boss man, Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, has carefully left the door open for himself.In all of American history, only two men -- Warren Harding and John Kennedy -- have gone straight from the Senate to the White House. Bob Dole in 1996 was the last sitting senator to win a party nomination (though he resigned his Senate seat a few months before the convention) and, like most of his predecessors, he was whomped in the election.In 2000, two men who had spent most or all of their public careers as senators, Al Gore and Bill Bradley, and a sitting senator, John McCain, were in the race -- and all three lost.The statistics show that vice presidents (many of them, like Gore, former senators) and governors and former governors (such as George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter) have far greater success in winning nominations and in making it to the White House than do senators. full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Well, we can probably throw this information out the window in this race. I don't think Richardson will be winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 Well, we can probably throw this information out the window in this race. I don't think Richardson will be winning.Giuliani isn't a Senator, nor is he a governor. Richardson isn't the only non-Senator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 True. My bad.I didn't know some of the former senators are actually practicing law now and not even in politics besides running for presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 There is a mayor (giuliani), 3 governors (Romney, Ricjardson and Huckabee), and 4 Representatives (Paul, Tancredo, Kucinich andHunter), in addition to 9 current or former senators in the presidential race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gto250us Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 There is a mayor (giuliani), 3 governors (Romney, Ricjardson and Huckabee), and 4 Representatives (Paul, Tancredo, Kucinich andHunter), in addition to 9 current or former senators in the presidential race.I think that Senators rarely become Prez is because Senators actually yield much more power, domestically than the Prez. They are more closely tied to their constituants and can actually stay in office for decades rather than just 8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I think that Senators rarely become Prez is because Senators actually yield much more power, domestically than the Prez. They are more closely tied to their constituants and can actually stay in office for decades rather than just 8 years.That would explain senators not running for presidential office, yet so many of them are. The tough part for them seems to be actually winning an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gto250us Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 That would explain senators not running for presidential office, yet so many of them are. The tough part for them seems to be actually winning an election.Yeah your right. Perhaps folks get a good idea of what kind of guy their senator really is and decide not to elect him. Governors on the other hand don't show their true stripes as a governor. The current Prez is a good example of that, along with Jimmy Carter.Governors tend not to do a whole hell of alot. Appoint a few commission heads, cut a few ribbons. Certainly no foreign policy issues. Senators however do get much more involved in policy making and foreign issues. One would think that this would make Senators better Prez candidates, but what the hell do I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I've noticed the phenomenon before and can't really come up with a good reason why.My own guess is that I think Governors tend to "get out" more, and have more experience getting in touch with more people around their states, while Senators tend to be "Washington types" and tend to lose touch with us "regular" folks. These are broad generalizations based on a few of my own observations, but I think this tends to enable governors to gain a broader appeal to the general public than Senators.Remember, it's not necessarily about being great at the job, but in getting a large number of folks to like you and trust you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 some states have weak governors and some strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 some states have weak governors and some strong. Arnold is strong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I've noticed the phenomenon before and can't really come up with a good reason why.My own guess is that I think Governors tend to "get out" more, and have more experience getting in touch with more people around their states, while Senators tend to be "Washington types" and tend to lose touch with us "regular" folks. These are broad generalizations based on a few of my own observations, but I think this tends to enable governors to gain a broader appeal to the general public than Senators.Remember, it's not necessarily about being great at the job, but in getting a large number of folks to like you and trust you.I'd speculate that it is because governors' races are more often hotly contested, held with greater frequency, and that they often have term limits. In contrast, senators are very strong incumbents and typically don't have to do a lot of campaigning in order to retain their seat basically for life.I would expect that a governor won't pull any punches, that their campaign managers are rarely out of practice and are intensely loyal to them, and that they know that a loss basically means an ejection from high-power politics, whereas the senator can very often just go back to his old job. That's got to affect motivation. And sometimes part of the battle just comes down to who is hungrier for a victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwilson Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I think a good chunk of it could be the fact that Senators don't exactly lead. They represent and follow, they don't lead. Some have had admirable leadership qualities, but they aren't really leaders. Conversely, a governor is a leader by definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 This is ignoring the part where Gore lost the SCOTUS vote 5-4, not the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 This is ignoring the part where Gore lost the SCOTUS vote 5-4, not the election.Speaking of religion..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I think a good chunk of it could be the fact that Senators don't exactly lead. They represent and follow, they don't lead. Some have had admirable leadership qualities, but they aren't really leaders. Conversely, a governor is a leader by definition.Depends on your definition of leadership, I suppose. Probably depends on context, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwilson Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Depends on your definition of leadership, I suppose. Probably depends on context, too.Senators don't lead. They legislate and politicize, that is their job. They lead in the context of their duties, but their duties are not to lead.A governor's job is to lead his state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Senators don't lead. They legislate and politicize, that is their job. They lead in the context of their duties, but their duties are not to lead.A governor's job is to lead his state.The chairs of various committes may take issue with that.Analogously, try telling a platoon sergeant or first sergeant in an infantry company that they don't lead. True, the platoon or company commander is ultimately responsible for their units, but they typically have far less experience (or respect) than do their non-commissioned underlings. Foolish is butter bars that doesn't take counsel from his sergeant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted October 13, 2007 Author Share Posted October 13, 2007 The chairs of various committes may take issue with that.Analogously, try telling a platoon sergeant or first sergeant in an infantry company that they don't lead. True, the platoon or company commander is ultimately responsible for their units, but they typically have far less experience (or respect) than do their non-commissioned underlings. Foolish is butter bars that doesn't take counsel from his sergeant."Foolish is butter bars....."? huh.........LOL. i've never heard that expression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 "Foolish is butter bars....."? huh.........LOL. i've never heard that expression. Butter bars are the insignia worn by a 2nd lieutenant. It is a gold bar. So, what Niche was saying was, "Foolish is the 2nd Lt. that doesn't listen to the advice of his Sgt." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted October 13, 2007 Author Share Posted October 13, 2007 how little i know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plumber2 Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 JFK and LBJ were both senators, LBJ being a very strong leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 JFK and LBJ were both senators, LBJ being a very strong leader.LBJ wasn't elected though, he got President by default. Red, I am astonished, no mention of Fred Thompson(ex-senator. TN.). I have YET to hear what he stands for, I think he looks VERY Presidential though, and I don't think he would hesitate to drop a bomb on some Radical Islamofacists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 LBJ wasn't elected though, he got President by default. Red, I am astonished, no mention of Fred Thompson(ex-senator. TN.). I have YET to hear what he stands for, I think he looks VERY Presidential though, and I don't think he would hesitate to drop a bomb on some Radical IslamofacistsThat's why I stated "current or former senators". Ol' Fred is the "former". I think Fred is a lazy bum, to put it mildly. I don't know what he stands for either, since he won't tell us. Maybe he stands for "None of the Above". I'm not sure what I think of Giuliani or Romney, but at least they WANT the job. Same goes for Clinton and Obama. The American preference for presidents that do not want the job, or are not intelligent frustrates me. It suggests that we prefer style over substance. Then again, Americans have not been accused of being deep thinkers recently. Maybe these intellectual deadbeats represent us more than we care to admit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 That's why I stated "current or former senators". Ol' Fred is the "former". I think Fred is a lazy bum, to put it mildly. I don't know what he stands for either, since he won't tell us........ Then again, Americans have not been accused of being deep thinkers recently. Maybe these intellectual deadbeats represent us more than we care to admit. I think this was a shot at me, remind me to smack you in the head next time we go have a beer. > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted October 14, 2007 Author Share Posted October 14, 2007 i dread the next election. i'll get to vote for the person i dislike the least. at this point, i can't see how a republican or a democrat will make me happy. at least i can find comfort in the idea that none of the senators are likely to be prez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I think this was a shot at me, remind me to smack you in the head next time we go have a beer. > Didn't mean it as a shot, TJ. If I thought you really like ol' Fred, I probably would not have commented. However, I really do think he is a lazy actor who doesn't really want the job. I think we can do better than that. In fact, if you want another war monger, Hillary is far more of a hawk than I prefer, though hopefully she is more of a Bill Clinton hawk than a Dick Cheney hawk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwilson Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 The chairs of various committes may take issue with that.Analogously, try telling a platoon sergeant or first sergeant in an infantry company that they don't lead. True, the platoon or company commander is ultimately responsible for their units, but they typically have far less experience (or respect) than do their non-commissioned underlings. Foolish is butter bars that doesn't take counsel from his sergeant.I don't think a Senator exactly parallels squad and platoon leadership roles. Consider also that said committees are nothing more than organized circle jerks and I will continue to deny that a Senator is a leadership role. That doesn't mean that some don't have leadership qualities or even lead within their groups. But Senators do not lead the way a chief executive of a city, state or country do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moni Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 i dread the next election. i'll get to vote for the person i dislike the least. at this point, i can't see how a republican or a democrat will make me happy. at least i can find comfort in the idea that none of the senators are likely to be prez.It is a good bet that Clinton will get it and she is a Senator! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted October 14, 2007 Author Share Posted October 14, 2007 the only way that clinton will win is if a third party candidate splits the republican vote. she is too despised in republican circles. if she is the democratic nominee, it will mobilize the republican base, regardless of whose running on their side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.