What's WITH IT with senators?

[Judäischen Volksfront]

The last incumbent senator to win a presidential election was JFK. All the others (Goldwater, Kerry, Dole, etc) lost because of one mistake. Why?

[Rob]

What do you mean, they all "lost because of one mistake"? The three examples you gave made many, many mistakes.

[Jake]

They had records. Simple as that. They had to take a black or white stance on evry vote and it hit them bigtime.  Plus they all had their share of stupid moments on tv/radio.

[J. J.]

They were part of the Senate culture and didn't really understand the Executive Branch.

I've been a member of local legislative bodies.  You are not really administrating; you making collective decisions.  Even in local governments, where you can work with local administration, there is a difference.

Recently, most presidents were governors, who administrate thing.  The exception was GHW Bush, who ran a large government agency (and a business).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They had records. Simple as that. They had to take a black or white stance on evry vote and it hit them bigtime.  Plus they all had their share of stupid moments on tv/radio.

Let's run someone with absolutely no record. Yeah.

[Jake]

They had records. Simple as that. They had to take a black or white stance on evry vote and it hit them bigtime.  Plus they all had their share of stupid moments on tv/radio.

Let's run someone with absolutely no record. Yeah.

Like Clinton and Carter

A record isn't a bad thing, it just is easy to paint someone some way if you have alot of proof. John Kerry voted against tax cuts alot. It was easy to make him anti-tax cut.  John Kerry voted against alot of weapon systems. It was easy to make him a anti-war hippie.

[muon2]

They were part of the Senate culture and didn't really understand the Executive Branch.

I've been a member of local legislative bodies.  You are not really administrating; you making collective decisions.  Even in local governments, where you can work with local administration, there is a difference.

Recently, most presidents were governors, who administrate thing.  The exception was GHW Bush, who ran a large government agency (and a business).

It's not only the lack of understanding of the executive branch, but also how one portrays issues. A legislator generally looks to their base in definining and explaining issues. Moving to the executive branch requires a more inclusive perspective. In speeches one will often note a level of specifics and details from legislators that are not present in executive presentations.

[J. J.]

They were part of the Senate culture and didn't really understand the Executive Branch.

I've been a member of local legislative bodies.  You are not really administrating; you making collective decisions.  Even in local governments, where you can work with local administration, there is a difference.

Recently, most presidents were governors, who administrate thing.  The exception was GHW Bush, who ran a large government agency (and a business).

It's not only the lack of understanding of the executive branch, but also how one portrays issues. A legislator generally looks to their base in definining and explaining issues. Moving to the executive branch requires a more inclusive perspective. In speeches one will often note a level of specifics and details from legislators that are not present in executive presentations.

You are making exactly the point I was trying to.  These are two different types of jobs.  The job of a governor is more like the job of president than the job of senator is like the job of president.

[muon2]

They were part of the Senate culture and didn't really understand the Executive Branch.

I've been a member of local legislative bodies.  You are not really administrating; you making collective decisions.  Even in local governments, where you can work with local administration, there is a difference.

Recently, most presidents were governors, who administrate thing.  The exception was GHW Bush, who ran a large government agency (and a business).

It's not only the lack of understanding of the executive branch, but also how one portrays issues. A legislator generally looks to their base in definining and explaining issues. Moving to the executive branch requires a more inclusive perspective. In speeches one will often note a level of specifics and details from legislators that are not present in executive presentations.

You are making exactly the point I was trying to.  These are two different types of jobs.  The job of a governor is more like the job of president than the job of senator is like the job of president.

One of Kennedy's strengths was his ability to communicate like an executive, rather than  the Seantor he was. It's surprising that few other Senators have picked up on that.

The key is to remember that the electorate doesn't have the knowledge of the government insiders. In a local race I was involved in, one candidate made references to actions that were really only known to the council. The public thought the candidate was being petty.

[MaC]

it's a possibility that these senators all ran against incumbents.  Goldwater would have made a great president, but Johnson was riding on Kennedy's coattails.  Goldwater also challenged Johnson to a debate, and Johnson declined, which if it happened, Goldwater couldv'e done better.  Bill Clinton was a controversial character, but he beat Bob Dole, in part because of the personalities of both candidates, partly Bob dole was 72 years old.  Kerry didn't appeal at all to any of the 2000 swing states that Bush hardly won.  He would've done better if he had let Edwards do more campaigning.  Also, like Bob Dole, he's boring as dirt to listen to.  I think the main thing is in all three cases, they just didn't have the appeal their opponent did.

[J. J.]

it's a possibility that these senators all ran against incumbents.  Goldwater would have made a great president, but Johnson was riding on Kennedy's coattails.  Goldwater also challenged Johnson to a debate, and Johnson declined, which if it happened, Goldwater couldv'e done better.  Bill Clinton was a controversial character, but he beat Bob Dole, in part because of the personalities of both candidates, partly Bob dole was 72 years old.  Kerry didn't appeal at all to any of the 2000 swing states that Bush hardly won.  He would've done better if he had let Edwards do more campaigning.  Also, like Bob Dole, he's boring as dirt to listen to.  I think the main thing is in all three cases, they just didn't have the appeal their opponent did.

Look how many sitting Senators lost in the primaries.  Leiberman and Edwards in this cycle; McCain in the last one.  Specter and Gram in 1996; Harkin and Tsongas in 1992.  None of these were running against incumbents.

The Senate is not a good place to launch a presidential campaign.

[TheWildCard]

It also might have something to do with the fact that Senators and Representatives have an ability to make things seem complicated (Take Kerry for example). Governors, on the other hand, tend to make things seem more simple, black and white if you will (Like George W. Bush).

[Democratic Hawk]

It also might have something to do with the fact that Senators and Representatives have an ability to make things seem complicated (Take Kerry for example). Governors, on the other hand, tend to make things seem more simple, black and white if you will (Like George W. Bush).

I think you just about sum it up -  in a nutshell!

Dave