"Senators Don't Win"

[Lunar]

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.

[Lunar]

ok thanks nevermind

[Lunar]

Generally governors are term-limited out, so they don't need to deal with more than 4-6 years of bills.  The types of actions that governors take, I would say, are generally more sexy.  Instead of blocking that amendment out of that subcommittee you chair, governors declare states of emergency and veto things, haha.

But you're right, the sample size is small.  Kerry definitely got burdened down by his long record, but that's not enough to prove a rule.

[Lunar]

Governors also can get tangled up with the economic situation in their states during their tenures or a particularly vitriolic state legislature, as well as their appointments.  Ask Palin.