"Senators Don't Win"

[WillK]

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

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.

[WillK]

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

[WillK]

Senators vs. Governors:

2008: IL Senator Obama beats AZ Senator McCain
2004: Former TX Governor Bush defeats MA Senator Kerry
2000: TX Governor Bush beats former TN Senator Gore
1996: Former AR Governor Clinton beats KS Senator Dole
1992: AR Governor Clinton beats former TX Congressman Bush
1988: Former TX Congressman Bush beats MA Governor Dukakis
1984: Former CA Governor Reagan beats former MN Senator Mondale
1980: Former CA Governor Reagan beats former GA Governor Carter
1976: GA Governor Carter beats former MI Congressman Ford
1972: Former CA Senator Nixon beats former SD Senator McGovern
1968: Former CA Senator Nixon beats former MN Senator Humphrey
1964: Former TX Senator Johnson beats AZ Senator Goldwater
1960: MA Senator Kennedy beats former CA Senator Nixon

Not once did a Senator or former Senator beat a Governor; Closest in 1988.

Not once in your list was a Senator running against a Governor. 

It happened in 1920.  That was a straight up match between a Senator and a Governor.  Governor got his ass kicked. 

Some incumbent Presidents were former Governors or former Senators, but then the race is about the incumbency not there prior position.

[WillK]

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?

Excellent points. 

I was thinking of stating the opposite observation:  the times when a Senator has been nominated against a non-incumbent, the Senator wins.  However the sample is quite small.

I dont think its completely true that "only governors have defeated sitting presidents".  It is true for the 4 sitting presidents who were defeated in the 20th C but not so much for the 5 in the 19th C.

[WillK]

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