"Senators Don't Win"

[pragmatic liberal]

The CW is that senators generally don't win the presidency -- governors do.

Can we put that bit of CW to rest now?

It's true that in the 19th century, governors, generals and cabinet secretaries predominated among winning presidential candidates. But since then, the 18th Amendment (direct election of senators) and the decline of the cabinet as a stepping stone to the presidency, I don't think that still applies.

Since 1914, when the 18th Amendment was ratified, the numbers look like this:

5 governors elected to the presidency
3 senators elected to the presidency

5 vs. 3 is not an overwhelming advantage.

Now, it may be true that governors have an easier time being nominated. Since 1914, governors have been nominated 13 times:

1. James Cox (D-OH) - 1920
2. Al Smith (D-NY) - 1928
3. Franklin Roosevelt (D-NY) - 1932
4. Alf Landon (R-KS) - 1936
5. Tom Dewey (R-NY) - 1940
6. Tom Dewey (R-NY) - 1944
7. Adlai Stevenson (D-IL) - 1952
8. Adlai Stevenson (D-IL) - 1956
9. Jimmy Carter (D-GA) - 1976
10. Ronald Reagan (R-CA) - 1980
11. Michael Dukakis (D-MA) - 1988
12. Bill Clinton (D-AR) - 1992
13. George W. Bush (R-TX) - 2000

Winning 5/13 times equals a win percentage of 38.5%

For Senators, it's the following...

1. Warren Harding (R-OH) - 1920
2. John F. Kennedy (D-MA) - 1960
3. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) - 1964
4. George McGovern (D-SD) - 1972
5. Bob Dole (R-KA) - 1996
6. John Kerry (D-MA) - 2004
7. Barack Obama (D-MA) - 2008
8. John McCain (R-AZ) - 2008

3/8 is equal to a win percentage of 37.5%

What all this suggests it that it makes no difference in the general election whether someone is a senator or a governor. It does seem possible that governors have an easier time getting nominated for president, but in the general election, I don't think most voters give a damn.

Ultimately, a candidate's success is driven more by their skills as a candidate and the political climate. I would guess that Reagan and Clinton would still have won had they been senators. And I doubt Dole being a governor would have allowed him to win.

[pragmatic liberal]

Observation:  Based on the list you provided, Senators seem to lose when running against an incumbent president (McCain being the exception).

Maybe. But again, this seems like the kind of random outcome that's purely the result of the fact that the aren't that many presidential elections to work with anyway. When there's such a small sampling size and so many intervening circumstances, it's hard to make any sweeping judgments.

Fact is, it's hard to defeat an incumbent anyway. Most incumbents that run for reelection win. The fact that only governors have defeated sitting presidents might fall back to the whole bit about governors getting the nomination more often.

The reason I say this is because think to all the senators that ran against sitting presidents: would a governor have beaten the president they ran against? Would a governor have unseated Lyndon Johnson in 1964? Would a governor have unseated Richard Nixon in '72 or Bill Clinton in '96?

[pragmatic liberal]

Since Reagan wasn't Governor at the time of his nomination, should he be included in that list?

Well, if you don't include the "former governors," then the total elected since 1914 (again -- that date is because that's when the 18th amendment was ratified) is 3.

If you include "former senators" then the number of senators elected actually jumps to 5 overall (Jackson, Harrison, Harding, Kennedy, Obama).

That of course is for all elections. If you look at ALL elections, the number of governors elected rises to 10: Polk, Hayes, Cleveland, McKinley, Wilson, FDR, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GWB, of which 7 were current and 3 were former (Polk, Carter, Reagan).

[pragmatic liberal]

Since Reagan wasn't Governor at the time of his nomination, should he be included in that list?

Well, if you don't include the "former governors," then the total elected since 1914 (again -- that date is because that's when the 18th amendment was ratified) is 3.

If you include "former senators" then the number of senators elected actually jumps to 5 overall (Jackson, Harrison, Harding, Kennedy, Obama).

That of course is for all elections. If you look at ALL elections, the number of governors elected rises to 10: Polk, Hayes, Cleveland, McKinley, Wilson, FDR, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GWB, of which 7 were current and 3 were former (Polk, Carter, Reagan).

If you are going to include "former Senators", the list needs to be much larger:
Monroe, JQ Adams, Van Buren, Pierce, Buchanan, the other Harrison (whichever you didnt include), Truman, Nixon

Likewise, you missed a few "former' Governors":
Jefferson, Monroe (on both lists), Van Buren (on both lists), T Roosevelt, Coolidge

Well, I'm only counting people whose most recent job was that of senator or governor. Quite a few people served in those positions but then served in another job (i.e. the cabinet or the vice presidency) before becoming president.

[pragmatic liberal]

Well, first of all, a senator HAD to win this election because it was one of the first times we've had Senator vs. Senator.  We could have put this to rest as soon as McCain won the primaries and it was clear Hillary or Obama would win the Democratic Primary.

Secondly, senators tend to get bogged down in their records -- it's why they lose.  Every bill contains so many earmarks and this or that, every spending bill you vote down is going to contain money for sexually abused children or something and every one you vote up will raise raise the tariff on Canadian mackerel 2 cents (and thus "raising taxes on the middle class").  Senators have a hard time winning becuase their records are long and easy to tear apart.

Obama was not a long-serving senator and when he was a senator, he was pretty self-conscious about his presidential ambitions and thus intentionally went through the right hoops: bipartisan legislation, nothing scary, etc.

See, this is what I'm skeptical about. I don't think there's anywhere near enough of a record to prove this.

Again, since 1914, 7 senators have won the presidential nomination of their party. 5 have lost, 3 have won. But let's take a look at those 5 losses:

1. Goldwater '64
2. McGovern '72
3. Dole '96
4. Kerry '04
5. McCain '08

Would ANYBODY have beaten Johnson in '64, Nixon in '72, or Clinton in '96? The fact that they were senators was completely beside-the-point: they lost because they were running against popular incumbents.

As for McCain, if anything, his senatorial record may have been a blessing -- he was a well-known lawmaker and fairly-well respected prior to this run. And again, do you really think Romney or Huckabee -- two governors -- could have defeated Obama this year?

It's possible that if Kerry had been a governor he'd have beaten Bush -- less of a paper-trail, so you say. But given that '04 was a national-security election with foreign policy a big factor, would someone from outside Washington with no profile in international issues have been able to do better than Kerry?

Basically, there's only one -- debatable -- case where a senator's paper-trail may have cost him an election he'd otherwise have won.

And it's not like governors have totally safe records either. Governors have to sign EVERY bill that crosses their desk. George H.W. Bush in 1988 certainly made quick work of Michael Dukakis by distorting and citing all kinds of objectionable things in bills Dukakis had signed -- much the same way that people have smeared senatorial records throughout.

When it comes down to it, the whole notion that senators somehow have it much tougher than governors at winning a general election just seems to be an oft-repeated bit of CW that doesn't really hold up. People come up with all kinds of reasons, but I think in the end, the results are fairly random and the record isn't that overwhelming -- again: since the 18th Amend., 3 senators, 5 governors. Not that overwhelming.