I support no Senators for President

[starmaker]

They never win
As majority they were elected to represent the people
and they cannot do this on the campaign trail

[trotsky]

1. A Republican Senator, perhaps.

So we can attack him (or her) better. The problem with Senators, especially long-serving ones, is that many times votes in the Senate are nuanced or have items tucked in them you don't necessarily agree with, but vote for anyway to get the larger, more important bill passed.

Then the opponent's campaign comes along and blasts you for these votes you made which to Joe Voter seem like you supported gutting the military or taking a silly position like being for the war before you were against it. It takes just 5 seconds to put the soundbite out there, but 10 minutes of dialog to explain why it's bogus. Guess which one will take root in the minds of most voters?

[HappyWeasel]

2. Good Call.

Since WWII:

1964- Goldwater(R-AZ)lost. By 25 popular percetnage points and by 85 percent of the electoral college.
1972- McGovern(D-SD) lost. By 22 popular percentage points and by 90 percent of the electoral college.
1996- Dole(R-KS) lost. By 6 popular percentage points and like 30 or 40 electoral percentage points.
2000- Gore(D-TN) lost. Gore won the popular vote by half a percentage point, but lost the electoral college by 1 percentage point though this is still a controversy to this day.
2004- Kerry lost(D-MA). By 3 popular percentage points and about 5 percentage points of the electoral college. This happened even as Bush was becoming unpopular.

they have a 0-5 record in the last 15 elections.

[Boston Critic]

7. True, but...

you left out John F. Kennedy who went from the Senate to the White House in 1960.

[HappyWeasel]

9. and he did win against a VP...

That's still 1-5....

Man, I don't want to think about McCain being the next "Kennedy", even if Kennedy was a young man and McCain is older than God.

[question everything]

11. And this is the point. That the last Senator elected was JFK

The Legislative and the Executive branches have two distinct missions requiring distinct people.

The President has to have executive background: ability to formulate and to implement decision, ability to gather and utilize resources efficiently..

The Senate is supposed to be the great debating body. Senators are expected to take their time debating an issue, going back and forth, changing their minds, compromising, studying an issue from all angles.

And once you have been a good senator with obvious track record of changing your mind during a debate, this will follow you as a "flip flop."

A governor, a general, a CEO, even a mayor. Someone who has shown the ability to lead and to govern.

[Peregrine]

13. Kennedy was a freshman -- 1st termer

and when somebody noted to him that Kennedy didn't have a record to run on, he replied that not having a record was the reason to run at that time.

[LiberalFighter]

12. Former Vice Presidents Win

Gore (also Senator)
Truman (also Senator)
Nixon (also Senator)
LBJ (also Senator)

John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
Martin Van Buren
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore
Andrew Johnson
Chester Arthur
Theodore Roosevelt
George H W Bush

That is 30% of Presidents were former VP

[bemildred]

3. Yeah, stick with Governors, from small, liberal states. nt

[HappyWeasel]

5. or mayors from big far-left cities....lol.

But, we need to find someone who has done a bit of everything...Richardson has a shit load of a expirence from Congress, to the Cabinent to the governor's palace.

[AIJ Alom]

4. Exactly, Senators are not good executive material and as you

have pointed out very few of them win. More likely, you are going to see a governor or other former executive, such as a vice president win the highest executive office in the land.

[KT2000]

6. So Right!

A good senator does not make a good presidential candidate. They are too cautious and "collegiate" which is the wrong impression for a president.
They have to come across a strong minded individuals and not stalwart team players.

Presidents come from outside the entrenched political system. He/she has to support one whole branch of government and look like they can do it alone.

[HappyWeasel]

8. LOL.

I think political science professors have a better chance at winning elections than senators.

[skipos]

10. I did a poll on this subject the other day

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2964070&mesg_id=2964070

[featherman]

14. This is my mantra between now and the 2008 Dem Convention

If we nominate a Senator I will work hard to elect that Senator but... I'd prefer we did not.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

16. Agreed...

I think we need somebody from outside Washington. You know that the R-Candidate will be a party hack, and the best defense against that (and the best offense) is to have a candidate who can campaign against Washington.

[LittleClarkie]

15. I do

[Thrill]

17. No Senator will win. Because they have long

voting records that can be easily distorted

[thatsrightimirish]

18. i agree

The exception to this however is Bayh because he was Governor of Indiana. But he is still a senator

[elperromagico]

19. Let me amend that:

Great senators never win.

Harding and Kennedy, the only two senators elected President in the last 100 years, did not have particularly extraordinary Senate careers. They took no real tough stances and avoided controversy.

When you take a senator like Dole or Kerry, people who have had strong Senate careers and have stuck their necks out on tough decisions, it's a delight for their opponents. They're so much easier to attack than a nebulous figure.

The truth is, the less the public knows about your positions, the better. A senator with 20 years of service simply doesn't have enough cards close to his (or her) chest.

[On the Road]

20. I'm a Big of Governors as Nominees, Too

If you had to select the next president of a company, would you prefer the corporate lawyer or the manager of operations?

This is why I am by no means certain that either party's nominee is even on the table at this point. All current nominees of both parties have serious drawbacks.

[ToeBot]

21. I support no Governors for President...

No one knows anything about them except their home state and those constituents either want them to win or want them out of local politics. They simply can't be trusted.

[Adelante]

22. I've moved to this position, also

Executive ability and experience is what is needed in the job.

[Kber]

23. Good Senators and Good Executives have different skills

Senators - deliberative, investigative, better to take time crafting legislation than do something too quickly w/out thinking through all possible ramifications. Kerry is an example of a good Senator. On the other hand, Senators who pass laws without considering obvious ramifications (like creating an abortion ban that doesn't consider the life of the mother, for example) are bad Senators.

Executives - decisive, quick, action oriented. Ability to quickly assiminate information and move from the thoeritical to the actual implementation seamlessly. However, you don't want an executive who can't make up her mind 'cause of information overload. I think Clinton was pretty good at striking the balance between getting the facts and taking action. Clinton's motto might have been "a 95 is still an A".