Governors running for President

[Skylar]

I'd have to look it up for sure, but I believe more of our Presidents have been governors than have been Congressmembers.

Only 3 Senators went from the senate to the White House, Harding, Kennedy and Obama.

Correction, since 1900.

And Nixon and Johnson.

They did not go directly from the senate to the White House, they were both VP's first.

But they did go from the Senate to the WH.

Yeah, but neither on their senatorial experience. Both on their VP experience. With Johnson inheriting the office and running as an incumbent. Meaning that when he actually ran, he ran on his experience as President. The very best experience for President there is.

 

[Skylar]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

I don't think a governor has a "better" chance at the presidency per se.

Some "conventional wisdom" I've heard is that a governor makes a better President because of the executive experience. Minor problem, though: It hasn't really played out that way.

Also, in a way I can see where a member of Congress might be better because they know and understand that body and the national political process better.

I dunno.

.

Since the great depression, they do. In terms of non-incumbant elections governors absolutely dominate. Roosevelt, Reagan, GW, Clinton, and Carter. There's no other source that even comes close. Non-incumbant (not holding the office of president) VPs have less than half that rate of success, with only Nixon and Bush pulling it off. Senators only managed it twice as well.

The only greater place to run for the presidency from than governor....is as incumbent president.

 

[Flopper]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

I'd have to look it up for sure, but I believe more of our Presidents have been governors than have been Congressmembers.

Only 3 Senators went from the senate to the White House, Harding, Kennedy and Obama.

Correction, since 1900.

And Nixon and Johnson.

Neither Nixon nor Johnson went from the Senate to Whitehouse. Johnson went from Vice President to President. There was about 16 years between Nixon's term in the Senate and his term as President.

 

[Flopper]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

I'd have to look it up for sure, but I believe more of our Presidents have been governors than have been Congress members.

17 governors, 19 members of the House, and 16 Senators have become president.

Yeah, but lately? Its been dominated by Governors, incumbent Presidents and VPs. There's been 10 between them. Senators have managed it twice. Only once without military experience.

In modern history, executive experience is the 800lb gorillla. With being president followed by being governor being the two biggest great apes.

The reason we had so many governors make it to the oval office is the advantages they have over other candidates.

First, a presidential campaign is a huge undertaking. You have to manage a large staff, balance the books of a multi-million dollar operation, cultivate donors, make public appearances, give speeches, kiss babies, perform well in debates. A gubernatorial campaign is much like presidential campaign only larger in scope The executive experience you mentioned certainly helps them through their campaign.

Second, Congress, where most candidates emerge is an inherently unpopular institution. Governors can escape this burden — they can run as Washington outsiders, and they can run more on their individual records. Obama is the first president to be elected from congress since Warren Harding.

I don't know it we can say our best presidents were governors. Washington, Lincoln, John Adams, and Truman are consistently ranked highly; none of which had any executive experience. Andrew Johnson, Calvin Coolidge, and George Bush, all governors rank pretty low.

Better? That's another issue. A greater chance at the presidency? Governors definitely have an advantage. And I'd say that its profound. The executive experience angle plays well. As being a governor is, as you alluded, like being a little president. You're an executive dealing with a legislature and a judiciary. You're appointing, vetoing, issuing executive orders, acting in the role of an executive. Its immediately relevant.

The only major hole in the gubentatorial resume for president is the foreign policy experience. As generally governors have none. Most presidents go in as babes in the woods. Only someone like Eisenhower would be even remotely prepared. And then only on the military end.

I really think all president bring qualities that may or may not make them a good presidents depending on the events that occur.

For example, Johnson was a master at working with congress and way out of his depth as a statesman because he didn't have the knowledge or the foreign policy experience. During his term as president he had a Democrat congress and became one of the most productive presidents in getting landmark legislation passed, 1964 Civil Rights, 1964 Voters Act, Medicare, and host of welfare legislation.. When it came to foreign policy he was way out his depth. He didn't understand the Russians and Chinese, or Vietnamese and he screwed up badly.

Now suppose he was president with a Republican controlled congress and a relatively calm international environment. His presidency would have been viewed much differently because his strength, dealing with congress would have been nullify and his lack of skill in foreign policy would have been masked.

 

[Pogo]

Whether right wingers on this forum believe it or not, this thread is NON-partisan.....

We have often heard that the qualifications to be president are best embodied in someone who has been governor of a state.

Although such makes some logical sense, there are some drawbacks to this theory.

As governor of a state, the candidate must defend his or her performance as, essentially, a CEO of a large organization....whereas as a senator or representative, a candidate for the WH always has the excuse that he/she was just ONE vote among many.

So, I would ask the impartial question: Does a governor of a state stand a better chance for the presidency than any other elected (or private sector) candidate?

I'd have to look it up for sure, but I believe more of our Presidents have been governors than have been Congressmembers.

Only 3 Senators went from the senate to the White House, Harding, Kennedy and Obama.

Correction, since 1900.

And Nixon and Johnson.

Neither Nixon nor Johnson went from the Senate to Whitehouse. Johnson went from Vice President to President. There was about 16 years between Nixon's term in the Senate and his term as President.

They still went from the Senate to the WH --- whether they made a stop on the way or not.
I don't believe VPing gives you much of any value in the way of experience anyway. Whatever basis they formed for their Presidentin', they would have done so in the Senate -- not in Observatory Circle.

 

[Skylar]

I'd have to look it up for sure, but I believe more of our Presidents have been governors than have been Congressmembers.

Only 3 Senators went from the senate to the White House, Harding, Kennedy and Obama.

Correction, since 1900.

And Nixon and Johnson.

Neither Nixon nor Johnson went from the Senate to Whitehouse. Johnson went from Vice President to President. There was about 16 years between Nixon's term in the Senate and his term as President.

They still went from the Senate to the WH --- whether they made a stop on the way or not.

Its functionally irrelevant for our debate. As exactly zero of the senators seeking office in this election (or the last, or the last, or the last) have been Vice President.

The last senator by way of VP to try it was Al Gore. And he lost.

 

[candycorn]

It doesn't matter. People vote for the party first, person second, and resume third. GWB was a holy terror as the governor of Texas; Arkansas is Arkansas, I'm not sure what Clinton did or if anyone could transform that place but we all can agree, he didn't.

Obama won because he was a superior campaigner to both McCain and Romney; it turns out that he was the better choice as well.

 

[Flopper]

I'd have to look it up for sure, but I believe more of our Presidents have been governors than have been Congressmembers.

Only 3 Senators went from the senate to the White House, Harding, Kennedy and Obama.

Correction, since 1900.

And Nixon and Johnson.

Neither Nixon nor Johnson went from the Senate to Whitehouse. Johnson went from Vice President to President. There was about 16 years between Nixon's term in the Senate and his term as President.

They still went from the Senate to the WH --- whether they made a stop on the way or not.
I don't believe VPing gives you much of any value in the way of experience anyway. Whatever basis they formed for their Presidentin', they would have done so in the Senate -- not in Observatory Circle.

It depends a lot on the president. JFK and Roosevelt totally ignored their VP's and didn't include them in much of anything. Truman complained that FDR included him in very few meeting and he had no idea what FDR was doing. Clinton was tight with Gore. I doubt George Bush ever made a decision without consulting Cheney.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It doesn't matter. People vote for the party first, person second, and resume third. GWB was a holy terror as the governor of Texas; Arkansas is Arkansas, I'm not sure what Clinton did or if anyone could transform that place but we all can agree, he didn't.

Obama won because he was a superior campaigner to both McCain and Romney; it turns out that he was the better choice as well.

"People"? Sounds like you're projecting again.