Senator Bahy said he rather be a Governor running for President than a Senator..

[bigdarryl]

because he said you have to make legislative decisions as a senator all you do is vote on things. fortunate for him he's been both. he will have the most experience out of all the candidates if he decides to run.

[SharonRB]

1. Except for maybe Al Gore

if we can convince him to run. Other than him, you're probably right.

[housewolf]

2. The odds against any senator being elected president are astronomical

If you look at it, the last person to be elected into the presidency directly from the Senate was JFK. And in all of American history, only a couple other senators were promoted to the presidency - like in the range of 2 - 3. A few have been promoted to Vice President and then elected into the presidency, but for the most part, Americans do not like to promote senators into the White House. Governors have much better odds.

[bigdarryl]

3. Which is way I will not discount Vilsack. he's the wildcard in all of this....

the thing he's got going for him is he is the first to officially say he's in this and his Governorship is over in January and he has plenty of time to criss cross the country in the same way Dean did.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. That is because the odds of ANYONE being elected President are astronomical

Look at almost every Senator that has been nominated. Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole. You can't tell me those guys would've won if they had been Governors. Parties nominate bad candidates many of which happen to be Senators. Only 43 people in our national government's history of over 200 years have ever become President. Not enough people have held the office to make statistical predictions.

[housewolf]

5. That's true

Can't argue with what you say.

And you can look at the presidential elections we have had throughout our history and look at the number of nominees, count how many of them were senators at the time of their nominations, and then look at how many of those were actually elected into the presidency.

Then you can look at all the nominees and see how many of them were governors at the time of their nomination.

And you'll find that the odds of a governor being elected into the presidency are much greater than those of a senator.

I used to know the exact numbers, but don't have that at hand right now.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. The data is statistically insignificant

Have more Governors won than Senators? Yes. Have there been enough presidential contests to statistically conclude that Governors have a better chance of winning than Senators? No.

[liberalpragmatist]

8. I have the exact numbers for the past 100 years

1904-2004. If you want, I can go from 1896, since that was the first "modern" campaign.

I won't include incumbent presidents or vice presidents who had previously been senators:

16 governors were nominated by the major parties between 1896 and 2004; 7 won, 9 lost.

William McKinley (R-1896), Woodrow Wilson (D-1912), Charles Evans Hughes* (R-1916), James Cox (D-1920), Al Smith (D-1928), Franklin D. Roosevelt (D-1932), Alf Landon (R-1936), Tom Dewey (R-1940), Tom Dewey (R-1944), Adlai E. Stevenson (D-1952), Adlai E. Stevenson (D-1956), James E. Carter (D-1976), Ronald Reagan (R-1980), Michael Dukakis (D-1988), William J. Clinton (R-1992), George W. Bush** (R-2000)

(*) Charles Evans Hughes was actually serving as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court when he was nominated; he had previously served as the progressive governor of New York.

(**) Of course, you could make the choice not to count George W. Bush in 2000, since he really lost the race but was awarded it by the Supreme Court and a partisan Florida Secretary of State.

Only 6 sitting (or recently retired) senators were nominated; 2 won, 4 lost.

Warren G. Harding (R-1920), John F. Kennedy (D-1960), Barry Goldwater (R-1964), George S. McGovern (D-1972), Bob Dole (R-1996), and John Kerry (D-2004).

I've said it a few times now; the bigger hurdle senators have is just getting nominated. But once nominated, there really aren't enough examples to allow us to draw any real meaningful conclusions.

I suppose if you take the percentages, 7/16 (44%) is a better score than 2/6 (33%), but not by much considering the small sample size for senators. If you disinclude George W. Bush from the governors' score, it's 6/16 (37.5%), which isn't much higher than 33%. And had 50,000 votes in Ohio gone the other way two years ago, the senators' score would be 3/6 or 50%.

So in the end, just vote for the best candidate. If they're a good candidate and a good campaigner, they'll have a good chance at getting elected regardless of whether they're a senator, a governor, vice president, or something else. After all, being a governor didn't really help out Michael Dukakis or Al Smith.

[snowbear]

7. Why is it.... you never hear the "Senator" talk when it comes to McCain..

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say.. "He's a Senator, so the race will be tough"

What's the deal with that?

[Ninja Jordan]

9. I don't know how Bayh's going to gain any traction.

The Netroots hates him, and he didn't have the front-runner status of Kerry. I'm not sure how he sets himself apart. He's toast if Obama gets in, because Obama will instantly become the sole 'anti-Hillary' candidate.

[thatsrightimirish]

10. As of now

We only have two Governors that are considering a run. Vilsack ( uh no) And Richardson. I actually think that Richardson is a very interesting choice considering that he will probably win New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado which will give us the White House. Who knows we could even win Arizona if McCain isn't the nominee.

And then we have one general Wesley Clark. We definately has an advantage in foreign policy issues, but a disadvantage when it comes to campaigning and having a geogrraphical base.

So considering that I no matter who I want to win, I'm sure that none of those people will get the nomination and the chances of us putting up a Senator are very likely.