Is Governor or U.S. Senator the more prestigious office?

[Ogre Mage]

I've discussed this with several people I know and there doesn't seem to be a consensus.  So I was wondering what others thought. 

[opebo]

I suppose governor is better for becoming president, but I find Senator more prestigious because they set federal policy.

[Tik]

I suppose governor is better for becoming president, but I find Senator more prestigious because they set federal policy.

[CPT MikeyMike]

First off..welcome aboard.

It really comes down to which state you are referring to. For example, small states like Delaware and New Hampshire, usually governors will later move to the Senate like Tom Carper and Judd Gregg. In some larger states, it's the other way around like Pete Wilson in California and Lawton Chiles in Florida. They both served first in the Senate and later governor.

In Missouri, usually the governors move later to the senate because of term limits. Look at John Danforth, Kit Bond, John Ashcroft and Mel Carnahan (of course he was elected after he passed).

I suppose governor is better for becoming president.

You're correct there Opebo. In the history of the presidency, only 2 Senators went directly from the Senate to the Presidency - Harding and Kennedy.

Another example of this was Bill Knowland in 1958. He left his CA Senate seat to run for governor because he wanted to be president and felt the governorship was an easier way to accomplish that. Of course that backfired when he lost big time to Pat Brown.

[Gustaf]

Senator when the state is small Governor when the state is big. On average, I say Governor because there are more Senators than there are Governors and it's a better stepping stone on the way to the presidency.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

One is no more prestigious than the other.  However, prestige (or reduction of) can be brought to the individual office by the actions the people holding said offices take during their respective terms.

[Snowguy716]

I'd have to say, coming from a medium sized state, that Senators have more clout.  I think Governors have a better chance at the Presidency because they don't have a huge record that can stand to attacks, because Governors don't propose legislation.

But if you're a career politician looking for your best chances at high political office, running for senate would be your best bet.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Governors can appoint Senators.  There's only 50 Governors, 100 Senators - Governor is more prestigious.

[riceowl]

Governors have more prestige in terms of recognizability - i can't imagine that more than half of a state's population knows both of their senators, but a good more would know who their governor is.

[True Federalist]

Well, Governors are entitled to 19 gun salutes, while ordinary Senators get none.  (Congressional Committee Chairs are entitle to 17 guns and the President pro tem and the Speaker of the House get 19.

Besides, more people are aware of what their governor is doing than what their senators are.  However what senators lack in prestige they make up for in not having term limits as most governors do.

[BushKenya]

I come from a large-small state or a small-mid sized state depending on your point of view, and I think they are both equal, with slight leaning to Governor.  It is true that more people know what their Governor is doing.  Here in Oklahoma, more people know what Brad Henry is doing rather than Jim Inhofe or Tom Coburn.  All they know (or should know) about Inhofe and Coburn is they are making a mess of things.  Being a Senator could be more lucrative in the sense they can benefit from that relative obscurity in their home state.  Meaning, unless they totally blow it (as Coburn and especially Inhofe have done) they won't have their bad points exposed as much and they will be hurt less by them.  Governors make better Presidents, but Senators make better Vice President (which suprises me why Hillary Clinton might choose Bill Richardson as her Veep).

Someone mentioned there have only been 2 Senators who have become President, and both of those either were assassinated or died in office and only served 2 1/2 years as president before their administrations and their lives were ended.

[Stranger in a strange land]

US Senator is generally more prestigious, unless it's a large state like Texas or California.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Governors have more prestige in terms of recognizability - i can't imagine that more than half of a state's population knows both of their senators, but a good more would know who their governor is.

But outside states' senators are more known than outside states' governors.

[jimrtex]

I've discussed this with several people I know and there doesn't seem to be a consensus.  So I was wondering what others thought. 

A lot of it may have to do with the longevity in office.  If a governor held office for 40 years he'd be compared to Fidel Castro.  And are both senate positions equally prestigious?  You don't hear much in Texas about whether the Rusk or Houston succession is more prestigious.