No senator elected president in over 30 years ?

In recent times it appears that senators just don't have a good chance at being elected president. The last president we had that served in the Senate was Nixon and he beat another former senator(Humphrey was the vice-president when he ran though) so one had to win there. I saw an article the other day listing possible 2008 canidates and they were almost all senators. It would appear to be in both parties favor to nominate a governor from a large or southern state given our recent history:
GWB - Governor Texas
Clinton - Governor Arkansas
GHB - Vice-President & former Congressman(he lost a senate race, see that was good luck for him)
Reagan - Governor California
Carter - Governor Georgia
Ford - Vice President and 25 year Congressman

Al Gore didn't have a chance in 2000, former senator. It's almost like there is a curse or something. Well if the dems nominate Hillary or any other senator then all the Republicans need to do is nominate Florida governor Jeb Bush and they pretty much have it locked up if you go by recent trends. John McCain would have a decent chance of breaking the senator taboo though. I think people have a better mental image of governors in general. The senate kind of puts a stigma on people with their voting records and their partisanship is much more visible.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by Lanceman]

One theory I've heard on this subject is that Governors make better Presidents due to the fact that they've been in the position of "Chief Executive" before. Although on a much smaller scale. They tend to give power to subordinates while Senators like to micromanage everything themselves. To curtail the "Bush was a Governor and he sucks" responses, I just mean this in a historical sense.

I heard this theory on the radio so take it with a grain of salt - but it makes sense to me.

That was damn funny to me. Thanks for that PistolPete.


To avoid the one-liner thing, I'll say that I find it interesting that they have so many factoids like this that you hear during election years.

IMO it really means little, as I think there's less "choice" to who gets in than most of us would imagine...

Oh well.

X

The job of a President is very different from that of a Senator.

Senators debate and discuss. They act pluraly and their function is legislative. They make no crisis or mission critical decisions.
Presidents and Governors implement and delegate tasks. Their power is vested in a single individual rather than a commitee (which means they are solely responsible). Their function is Administrative and crisis decisons are always part of an administrative position

It can be stipulated that an individual that is comfortable and at their best in a paced, stable enviorment such as a legislative body, might not be comfortable in an Executive/Administrative position or tempermentaly suited for it.

I find the theory plausable.

And perhaps no President has been elected in over eight years...

Records come, records go.

Ya know, Masked Avatar, of all the people whining about this election, your dismay is simultaniously starting to amuse me and disgust me. You just can't resist trolling for places to spread division and more Bush hate. Seek therapy. I hear many Democrats are.

Back to topic:
President Jimmy Carter, former Governor of Georgia, a southern state.
President Bill Clinton, former Governor of Arkansas, a southern state.
Hmmmmm.

I'm OK, but I'm not a Democrat. I think I'm still OK in spite of that. Are you?

Bush and the recent election farces aren't. Glad to have got under your skin and raised your awareness of election fraudulence, after all that.

That is why you will see Blojo as the democratic candidate in '08.

You know, that really has little to do with the thread at hand. But bring it up every chance you can and people are going to stop listening. Seriously, ask yourself how many members there are where you don't even bother to read their posts, since you already know what they're going to say?

Anyway, for the subject of the thread, I think it's a plausible theory. But no rule is absolute, so I wouldn't say that being a Senator is an automatic presidential death sentence.

Well, you seem to parrot the Democrat point of view often enough that I thought you might want to seek their remedy. My mistake. But dispite all your ire, George Bush is the Presisdent for the next four years. If you are an American, I feel sorry for you that you seem determined to spend it being pissed off and obstructionary. If you aren't a citizen, I'm not even gonna feel sorry for you. In that case it would be none of your business anyway.

You are probably correct in that there is election fraud in the system. I expect it is on both sides of the political aisle and is certainly nothing new, but I feel it is over-zealous people on a local and state level doing it and not the bigwigs of either side.

None of this, no matter if you are right or wrong will get the next northern liberal elitist Senator that the Democrats put forth elected President though, even if ---- no, especially if it's Hillary Clinton.

I am with Masked Avatar on this one...it is just coincidence.

You want another one like that :No president that has been elected has had a complex last name, think about it all the last names were simple easy ones.

Surf

I checked out Howard's link above to Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich's website. Seems like he has worked hard to get where he is, the only problem I see (besides the complicated name that surfup pointed out) is that most of his political accomplishments the site mentions are Anti-gun legislation. You can already hear the second amendment ads running on TV and radio. Anything that alienates a Democratic canidate from the southern or midwest rural states isn't good for them at this point in history.