Can a Senator get elected President?

[sabotai]

Most reasonable, intelligent people know that for every issue, there's more than 1 bill dealing with it. Some cases, there are many. Senetors, as well as Representives, prefer certain language and methodology in bills that deal with these issues. Some hate the language and methodology of others. Sometimes the difference seems negligable to us, but could mean the world to the future intepritation of the law.

We saw in this election how you can play with the numbers of voted fors and voted againsts. Kerry voted to "raise taxes" (which taxes?) 90 some times, Kerry voted to "cut taxes" (which taxes?) 600 some times. He voted against "budget caps" (which ones?) this many times, but for this so many time but against the same thing so and so many times.

It gets to the point that average voter, or lets say the average voter that doesn't really understand how the Senate and House works (most of them), just doesn't trust those numbers, and thus, since we seem almost automatically untrusting of politicians, doesn't trust the canidate.

Look at the elections since 1980. Reagan, Governor, Prez for 2 terms. Bush part 1, VP turned Prez. After 1 term, Clinton, Governor, Prez for 2 terms (ran against Senator in 1996). And now Bush part 2. Governor, 2 terms. First time, barely beat VP (former Senator) and now beat another Senator.

So basically, since Governors only have to defend what actually happened in the state (and take full credit for the positives) as opposed what they voted "for" and "against" and how many times they did it, can a Senator ever beat a Governor (or Governor turn President) in the Presidential election?

[Ben E Lou]

I'd say that it is difficult, precisely because of the voting record issue, and this election underscores that truth. A 20-year veteran of the Senate lost to a *very* vulnerable incumbent.

[HornedFrog Purple]

JFK did.

[Arles]

It's very tough because of your point on voting records. Many times a senator will promise a vote on something they normally would not believe in (and may not even pass) in order to get another senator's vote for their own pet cause. You could look at Ted Kennedy's record in the senate and point to a handful of votes that say he supports gun rights, tax cuts, is anti-education, is against Affirmative action, wants to give rich corporations tax breaks, is anti-gay rights and is against the environment.

The Senate often results in the final step on the political ladder for this exact reason.

[albionmoonlight]

I agree. There is a careful balance between needing enough experience to be credible, but not having enough of a record to be called out on. Governors seem to provide that balance nicely.

[Arles]

JFK did.
Actually, he just conceded the election this afternoon.

Oh, you mean the other JFK ;)

[CraigSca]

Interesting point, Sabotai.

Regarding the "voted for taxes N times, voted against them N times", I'm thinking that the majority of Americans are no longer influenced by such ads. It seems both sides used pointless, inflammatory rhetoric in their ads and they were downright laughable. To me, it seems like politicians just throw as many ads out there as they can, hoping one will stick (like the anti-Goldwater young girl picking daisies ad in the early 60's).

Sorry for the the tangent...

[HornedFrog Purple]

The only other ones I can think of who had Senate experience who became President were Nixon and LBJ. Interesting to note they both served as Vice President in the interim.

Maybe Truman too, I am not sure.

[JeeberD]

So does that mean that our Senator won't ever be president? I was hoping for a bill that would fund those who create text sims... ;)

[Senator]

Truman yes, but he also went from the veep spot to the Presidency.

That is why John Connally wanted the governorship of Texas over a Senate seat. He was eyeing the White House in 76 or 80. I talked to him about it one time.

As for me, I am hoping to buck against the grain.

[sabotai]

I just went through (quickly, so I might have missed one or two) all of the elections in a book I have. Only twice in the entire history of the US has a politicians gone from the Senate to the White House (with no stops in between). Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy. Everyone else got in as a Governor, VP, "War Hero" or from a Cabinat postition (or at least that was their last position before winning the White House). Of Course, there was one time where the guy's last position before winning the White House was...the White House. Good old Cleveland.

A couple of others had Senate experience. Some had House experience. But only 2 jumped from the Senate to the White House (and none that I can see, but may have missed one, that went from the House to the White House. In fact, there might have been one in the early 1800's...but I'm going to eat dinner now, so you'll have to look it up. :) )

[Franklinnoble]

I think the voting record is important, but greater still is the fact that a Governor has a more similar job description as a chief executive. The comparison is easier to make - i.e. "Arnold Schwarzenegger has done an excellent job as governor of California. He has made great progress in a bi-partisan fashion with a hostile state assembly. Therefore, he might make a good President." The only advantage a senator *might* have is with regards to foreign policy and such, and that's only if he's on the right committees.