Help me respond to this: Governors and the presidency.

[Xithras]

A friend just sent me this email. This isn't the beginning of the conversation, but comes as a response to a comment I made about our party being a shoo-in during the next election.

"XXXXXX, the Democrats are ignoring history and the preferences of the American people, and will hand the White House to the Republicans again in 2008. The American people do not like to elect senators to the presidency. We like leaders with a proven track record of managing governments on their own, and that kind of presidential practice can only come from being the governor of a state. The United States has elected 17 men to the presidency since 1900, and of those 17; Nine were governors, five were senators, two were bureaucrats, and one was a war hero. Of the five senators elected, one was the former lieutenant governor of his home state, and two were serving as sitting vice presidents. In the past 108 years, only two currently serving senators, Warren Harding and John Kennedy, have successfully ran for president.

And who are the Democrats running this year? Clinton (Senator), Obama (Senator), Biden (Senator), Dodd (Senator), Edwards (Senator), Gravel (Senator), Kucinich (Senator), Richardson (Governor). The only governor on the list is running a failing campaign that hardly gets mentioned in the media! And who are the Republicans running? Huckabee (Governor), Romney (Governor), Guiliani (not governor, but running a city like NY is pretty close), and a collection of political hacks that few people take seriously as candidates (Ron Paul? Fred Thompson? Please, media hype aside, only the party whack-jobs consider them serious contenders for the presidency). The only sitting senators on the Republican ticket are Brownback and McCain, and neither of them have any substantial national support from the base. The leading candidates are all governors or near-governors.

Your party has always ignored this historical fact in the past, and the only Democrat who has managed to break the streak in a CENTURY was JFK. Are you honestly telling me that Clinton or Obama have the pull and mass appeal of JFK? JFK won in one of the closest elections of the past century, so even a slightly less appealing candidate couldn't pull off what he did.

If the Democrats really want to win, they need to start pulling candidates from their pool of governors. You want a woman president? Run Jennifer Granholm. She probably has a better shot at being the first woman president in American history than any other woman in American politics today (her name is somewhat known nationally, she is generally respected as a politician, and she is a governor). If you don't care about that, Bill Richardson or Mike Easley are respected Democratic governors with terms that will be expiring soon. Either of them are capable of taking the presidency.

So yeah, I think our next president will be a Republican. Your party just doesn't get it. You guys keep selecting the "noisiest" candidate to follow, completely ignoring this countries actual voting patterns. People want the Bush presidency to end, and they understand that will happen following the next election. Any of the senators the Democrats are running could beat Bush today, but they aren't running against Bush. They are running against Guiliani, Huckabee, and Romney. None of them had any real role in the Iraq war, and I think that most voters will be smart enough to recognize that. I simply don't see how the Democrats can win."

My response:

"XXXXXXX, you bring up some interesting points, but I believe that you are overlooking the fundamental dissatisfaction that the American people are having with the Republican party. The 2006 elections demonstrated that the American people do hold the party responsible, as a whole, for the problems in the country today. We took many of those Governor seats away from the Republicans in that election, and stripped them of many seats in both the Senate and the House. The American people are angry at the Republicans, and I think they will elect a Democrat, any Democrat, simply because he is not a Republican."

His response:

"XXXXXX, you might have been right if the Presidential elections were held in 2006, but they weren't. Your party came into office on a wave of political dissatisfaction, but they have mostly squandered their good will through inaction. According to a Zogby poll, only 19% of DEMOCRATS give their Senators and Representatives high marks right now. Since the election, nothing has really changed. Do you honestly think that voters haven't noticed? Do you genuinely think this inaction won't come back to bite them? The Democrats have already sent a message to the American people, and that message clearly says that they aren't willing to really change anything. The American people may not like the Republican party at the moment, but the Democrats have removed themselves from consideration as the party of change. Voters are essentially being told that the status quo will be maintained by both parties for the foreseeable future. Given that fact, there is absolutely no reason to expect the American voting populace to depart from its historical voting patterns. Those patterns dictate that the next president of the United States will probably be a governor. Who is running those?

Look, all things being equal, I'd prefer to see a Democrat president over a Republican too. As I see it right now, the best opportunity that Democrats have is drafting Al Gore (Americans love electing vice-presidents). Failing that, your party needs to convince one of your more high profile governors to launch a last minute campaign. Failing that, you just need to accept that you'll have a Republican president in 08, and start grooming those governors to run in '12.

Besides, this situation isn't even all that unique. The Iraq war still hasn't created the same kind of strife and division within the US that we experienced during Vietnam. The 1968 and 1972 elections occurred during the most contentious stages of that war. In 1968, Richard Nixon ran against sitting Senator Hubert Humphrey. Nixon ran an "arrest the hippy scum protesters" campaign, while Humphrey ran a campaign based on improving government programs and improving the American economy. Humphrey lost. In 1972 Senator George McGovern ran against Nixon to try and unseat him. By this point the war was almost universally hated. McGovern ran an anti-war campaign promising to bring the troops home. Nixon ran the equivalent of a "stay the course" campaign. McGovern lost by the second widest margin in American history.

You can ignore reality all you want, but it's undeniable that Americans don't like voting for senators. By running only senators, the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot."


I'm trying to come up with a response here. The person I'm talking to is a co-worker, a political science professor, and an unapologetic Green party voter, so it's not like I'm arguing with a 'thug. I'm friends with this guy and have a great deal of respect for his political opinions, so I'm just trying to find a flaw in his logic. And yes, I hope to hell that his logic is flawed.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Running a General this year would have been wise.....(think 1952)

But well, that's not how it happened. :(

Maybe a Vice-President can still run?

((((AL GORE DO YOU HEAR ME?))))

[Xithras]

2. No help?

I see lots of views, but nobody is really commenting. That worries me a little.

[Orangepeel]

4. there isn't much to argue with

It is a historical fact that Governors have been more likely to win than Senators. But... what to do about it? We could, as your friend suggests, simply say, "oh, well" and resign ourselves to a republican winning. Fuck that. Historical precedent may predict the future but it doesn't determine it.

One possibility is to try to figure out why governors tend to win. It is because they're governors, or is it because of some characteristic that governors are more or less likely to have? Partly, Senators tend to lose because they have voting records that are easy to twist. There are a lot of procedural votes and convoluted bills in the Senate that make it possible to make Senators seem against things they are for and for things they are against. (It's not a particularly optimistic thought, but in my opinion that has become moot. Nominating a governor isn't going to stop republicans from smearing him/her, with lies if they have to. Unfortunately, their spin machine is much more sophisticated and less scrupulous than ours). But, anyway, one option is to nominate someone who wasn't/hasn't been a senator very long.

If governors win because they are governors, can we figure out what it is that American like about gubernatorial experience and find a way to convince them that our candidate has that?

Or, you can just tell your friend that 9/11 changed everything. :rofl:

By the way, regarding your friend's suggestion that we force Al to run -- I don't know why he thinks that Americans love to elect Vice Presidents. Their collective track record isn't much better than that of Senators, if you exclude the ones that became president before they ran.

[jcrew2001]

8. I agree that vice-president incumbents are generally loathed

because voters seem ready for a FRESH START after 8 years.

Gore failed, Ford failed, LBJ failed for a 2nd term, Nixon failed at first.

I think vice-presidents weren't liked enough to win the Primary or the General Election, so voters are automatically disinclined to like them. The voters vote for the President only and the VP is window dressing, made to help the Prez look better, at the VP's sacrifice.

After 8 years, the incumbent VP is no longer the Fresh, exciting change candidate, that Americans will always pine for.

[jcrew2001]

3. Will an ineffective Senate career hurt Hillary's chances in the general election?

I have been thinking about this issue and was going to start a new thread. I agree with this theory and have been thinking what would hurt Hillary the most in the General Election. Besides the fact that half of the country already dislikes her and will not vote for her under any circumstances.

Even an "effective" Senator would have difficulty getting elected in the General Election for several reasons. Senator's have the easiest job in elected govt, they have 6 year terms, not much campaigning, there's 2 from every state, so their state support isn't as unanimous or all-encompassing like a popular governor. Thus, their appeal is limited. Long-serving senators like Kerry, Gore, Dole, have less accomplishments than governors. They become "Washington Insiders" and are no longer seen as Grassroots candidates.

(1) Senators are ineffective because they are subject to the whim of the President and the Congressional majority. Being a senator is a great final easy high-paying job where you vote on bills, but most of those bills will never get passed if your in the minority, like Kerry and Hillary. So they are bound by inaction and an inability to directly change the policies of the President. If Hillary is elected to "change" DC politics, can she be successful after 7 years of failure?

(2) Senators are by nature "Washington Insiders" they live in DC for half the year and are corrupted by govt inaction and lobbyists. A successful Presidential candidate has always framed Himself as a Reformer, a Change Agent that will change Washington politics and change from the fed-up policies of the previous administration. This worked for Clinton against GHWB, for Reagan against Carter, for Carter against Ford, and for Nixon against Humphreys, etc. Even GWB ran to on a slogan to "restore dignity to the white house".

So for Hillary to be successful, she needs to completely take on the slogan of an Outsider willing to "change DC politics and reform". But she cannot both be against Washington change, when she has lived in DC for the last 7 years and didn't make any "changes" then.

The only thing that Hillary has going for her to exhibit "change characteristics" is being a Woman, and having the name recognition of Clinton.

If she were only a NY Senator, her base would be thin, as other Americans would view her as a typical Northeast liberal senator from NYC, which was a label that hurt Kerry fatally.

But Hillary can win at least 49% on Name recognition from the regions that like her husband. But this will also hurt her in the regions that dislike her more than her Husband, and will never vote for her. Hillary cannot win a close election in my opinion.

(3) The "true Washington Outsiders/reformers" are actually on the GOP side. Rudy and Romney only have party ties to Dubya, but they have had no physical connection to the White House policies of the past 8 years. If voters want to change the policies of the last 8 years, particularly on the IWR, etc. Rudy and Romney can make a case that they can create new policies that are different and more successful than GWB. The issue of IWR and the Iraq Debacle is an issue that Obama can effectively use since he was not in Washington at the time.

On the GOP side, Romney's chances are slim since he has no base of support, and slim support in Utah. They hate him in MA, they dislike/distrust him in the South (he's a yankee), they dislike him out West.

But Rudy can win against Hillary by convincing the 51% that would never vote for Hillary, to vote for him instead. And also convincing Independent/centrist voters that he is more Liberal than GWB and his administration, and will provide enough change from the previous 8 years.

I think Rudy has a tough chance, but if he can win PA, Florida, NJ, and Ohio, he can beat Hillary.

It will be an Election of the "Washington Insider" vs. "The Washington Outsider/Reformer"

It will be up to the Swing voters to determine who is the Insider and who is the Reformer - Rudy or Hillary.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. It's simply not true

that half the country dislikes her and wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances.

[jcrew2001]

7. We won't know until Nov 2008

I'm hoping she can win 51% but even Bill Clinton got only 49% in 1996.

Being a Senator is her strength/curse, she can be slimed with the last 7 years of work/ineffectiveness, but she can also say she is ready for the presidency, but never actually having put up any success or accomplishments besides being married to Bill Clinton from 1992-2000.

She will need to overlook/de-emphasize her Senate votes and Emphasize whatever she did as First Lady.

She can win Ohio, Ark, maybe Virginia. I think Florida is a tossup since they voted for Bush again in 2004 and Crist.

As long as JEB isn't the VP, Rudy can effectively separate himself from GWB, at least to conservative swing voters.

[jcrew2001]

6. BTW, Jen Grahnolm is a canadian and cannot be president

But its also an interesting thought that there is no incumbent VP to "hate and vote against" which is what happened to Gore, Ford, Humphrey, Nixon (vs JFK).

Rudy can win if he completely distances himself from Bush, and makes this a "Clean Break" election, where it is no longer about Bush's failed Iraq war policies and general dissatisfaction with his conservative govt, but a direct comparison between Candidate Rudy and Candidate Hillary.

Gore failed because he was tied to Clinton, and when he tried to be his own man, nobody liked him that much at the time anyways. But Gore can certainly now come back as an "Outsider" with the experience to change Washington - like Nixon against Humphrey/LBJ-Vietnam hatred.

Hillary has a Good Chance, but her "Washington Experience" will both Help Her and Hurt Her.

[Xithras]

9. Lol, thanks! I'll have to point that out to him.

[jcrew2001]

11. Most Goppers are running as far away from Bush as possible

especially those who face re-election. So it will be very interesting to see if the GOP can turn centrist/left in time for Nov 2008. And whether Hillary would be viewed as too extreme by centrist swing voters.

The GOP is certainly becoming an endangered species with many retiring. However, a moderate GOP can re-emerge in this "change election".

I don't know how successful that would be but they have no other choice.

[CK_John]

10. That is why I feel we need Gov K Selebius as our VP. n/t

[jcrew2001]

12. Hillary/Selebius isn't going to happen

And I don't think Americans think highly of Kansas - otherwise Brownback will be leading.

[jcrew2001]

13. Obama and Edwards can play up the Outsider/Reformer tag

by claiming to not be beholden to the Senate and its legislation.

Being a Senator is a curse in the presidential election.

For Obama, he didn't have to wait to 2012 or 2016 to run because he would have been seen as another detached, Washington Senator. He ran in 2008 so that he can still claim his ties to Illinois state govt and its citizens, without yet having been corrupted by the Washington game.

For Edwards, the smartest thing he did was leave the Senate after realizing that another 6 years of being in the minority party would be worthless.

For Hillary, the only reason she has a chance is because she is emphasizing her First Lady experience as opposed to her lackluster Senate experience.

Yet, Hillary may be more popular elsewhere than in NYS. Her popularity in NY is solely due to being the First Lady. The awe and celebrity is based on being "second in command" to her Husband. In fact, she may be more of a compelling figure because she can give the behind-the-scenes actions on the White House action, without being an unapproachable one-dimensional politician.

But then there is are those who dislike her and her celebrity status.

[Steve_in_California]

14. Governors do not command the sort of international respect this country needs now.

Senator Joe Biden will draw voters from both parties and win with a mandate in 2008.

[jcrew2001]

17. unfortunately the UN can't vote for president

haha

[rufus dog]

15. As stated by Orange... there is only one valid response

"Your thinking is indicative of a 9/10/01 mindset. Please refer to your leaders regarding a post 9/11 world."


Payback is a bitch!

[jcrew2001]

16. good point

but i think that most Americans still care about national issues, rather than international issues and how the world views us. If we cared so much about foreign policy, then Kerry would have beaten GWB.

[Steve_in_California]

18. The country has undergone a paradigm shift in its views.

CBS has released the results of poll that reveal voters historicial preference for candidates from outside of Washington has undergone a dramatic change. Now, most people want a president with Washington credentials and experience.

Tell your friend he's wrong.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/18/opinion/polls/main3272744.shtml

....text of article below ......

(CBS) Delaware Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden may have been in Congress since 1972, but three quarters of registered voters say they don't have either a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him, a new CBS News poll finds.

Fifty-six percent of registered voters say they haven't heard enough about Biden to form an opinion. Nine percent say they have a favorable view of the candidate, while 15 percent say they have an unfavorable view. Nineteen percent are undecided.

Biden's long tenure in Congress isn’t hurting him: few Democratic primary voters say they're actively looking for a nominee from outside the beltway. Twenty-eight percent of Democratic primary voters prefer a nominee with experience from inside Washington, compared to 18 percent that prefer a nominee with experience outside the nation's capital. Forty-nine percent say it doesn't matter.

Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has discussed the idea of de-centralizing the Iraqi government and separating Iraq into three distinct regions. Asked about that idea in general, most Democratic primary voters (as well as nearly half of all voters) favor it. Fifty-two percent of Democratic primary voters favor separating Iraq into three parts, while 37 percent favor keeping Iraq under one government.

[jcrew2001]

19. I still think its a tougher sell because it is only natural

for Americans to distrust big govt/Washington and care more about Grassroots candidates from the state level. Politicians who serve most of their time in DC, like Senators can never gain that bond that comes with being available to state citizens on a daily basis.

Senators don't really get that much done, especially if they are the minority party. You can spend all day working on legislation, but there is always compromise and the bill might not even pass. There's no delegation of duty besides the few staff members for Senators. Governors have to run agencies and need to respond quickly in emergencies.

Certainly the VP candidate would need years of DC service, to guide the president. But I still believe that the a successful President needs grassroots support and the personality to connect from the bottom up, instead of dictating from DC.