Is it really true that Senators Don't Get Elected President?

[liberalpragmatist]

I know this is a common meme, but I'm not really sure it's true.

Pre-Civil War, most Presidents came from the Senate or the cabinet. James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan all served in the Senate, many of them serving in the Cabinet as well. Prior to the 19th Amendment (popular election of Senators), the Senate was more of a revolving door and contributed to a more cabinet-style government; people would often serve only part of their term, get appointed to a cabinet post or ambassadorship, then return to the Senate.

Post-Civil War, governors and generals became more common as nominees up until the end of the 19th Century (perhaps seen as better able to avoid the sectional conflicts that gripped the capital). Ulysses S. Grant, elected in 1968, was a general. Rutherford B. Hayes, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Theodore Roosevelt were all governors. Benjamin Harrison was a Senator. James Garfield was a Representative (last man to go directly from the House to the Presidency).

Looking at the losing nominees, Horatio Seymour (D-NY, nom. 1868), and Samuel Tilden (D-NY, nom. 1876) were governors. Horace Greeley (the nominee of a "Liberal Republican" and Democrat fusion ticket in 1872) was a newspaper editor. Winfield Scott Hancock (D, nom. 1880) was a general. James G. Blaine (R, nom. 1884) was a former Senator, former Secretary of State, and former Speaker of the House. William Jennings Bryan (D, nom. 1896 and 1900) was a Representative.

More relevant to this discussion is probably the 20th Century.

In the 20th Century, governors have been nominated more than senators. However, several senators or former senators have still been elected president or succeeded to the presidency. And for a 32-year stretch between 1945 and 1976, no governors served as president - only former senators, a general, and a congressman.

In the 20th and 21st Centuries, 5 sitting senators have been nominated (1920, 1960, 1964, 1972, and 2004). Bob Dole in 1996 was a sitting senator, but resigned his Senate seat during the campaign.

In 1920 and 1960, the sitting senators, Harding (R) and Kennedy (D), won. In 1964, 1972, 1996, and 2004, the nominated-senators lost. Arguably, however, in 1964, 1972, and 1996, the Senators nominated were competing in unwinnable races. And the especially poor showings of Goldwater in 1964 and McGovern in 1972 were likely due more to their perceived (or real) extremism rather than their status as senators.

If you include former senators (including those who served as vice president), Nixon (R) in 1960 and Humphrey (D) in 1968 both lost as incumbent vice presidents. Both, however, lost to senators - sitting or former; Nixon to Kennedy in 1960 and Humphrey to Nixon 1968. Walter Mondale a former Vice President and Senator was clobbered by Ronald Reagan in 1984.

And Al Gore, former Vice President and former senator technically lost in 2000. He certaily didn't become President. But I think most of us would agree he actually won.

So out of 5 candidacies of people who served as both vice president and senator, 3 - Nixon in '60, Humphrey in '68, and Mondale in '84 - lost (4 if you include Gore) and 1, Nixon in '68, won (again, 2 if you include Gore).

One could also include Truman in '48 and Johnson in '64; both were former Senators and Vice Presidents but had already succeeded to the presidency when they were formally elected.

So to sum it up, out of 6 sitting senators nominated since 1900, 2 won, 1 lost a winnable race and 3 lost unwinnable races (Goldwater '64, McGovern '72, and Dole '96).

If you include Vice Presidents who had previously served as Senators, 11 were nominated; 3 won, 3 lost winnable races (Nixon in '60, Humphrey in '68, Kerry in '04), 4 lost unwinnable races (Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale, and Dole). The 11th (Gore in '00) arguably won, which would make it 4 wins, 3 winnable losses, and 4 unwinnable losses.

Let's look at governors elected since 1900 (again, excluding incumbent presidents). Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were all governors. (McKinley, reelected in 1900 was previously a governor; Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge were both governors, were elected vice president and succeeded to the presidency).

On the other hand, the following governors or former governors lost - Charles Evans Hughes (R-NY) lost in 1916; James Cox (D-Ohio) lost in 1920; Al Smith (D-NY) lost in 1928; Alf Landon (R-Kansas) lost in 1936; Tom Dewey (R-NY) lost in 1944 and 1948; Adlai Stevenson (D-Illinois) lost in 1952 and 1956; Michael Dukakis (D-Mass.) lost in 1988.

I won't include in this analysis those governors who ran strong third-party bids; that would include Robert LaFollete of Wisconsin (Progressive Party, 1924), Strom Thurmond of SC (States' Rights Democratic Party, 1948), or George Wallace of Alabama (American Independence Party, 1968).

Of course, Cox, Smith, Landon, Dewey in '44, and Stevenson in both '52 and '56 all lost arguably unwinnable races.

So that's 6 wins, 15 losses; broken down it's 6 wins, 3 winnable losses (Hughes '16, Dewey '48, and Dukakis '88), and 6 unwinnable losses for the governors.

What all this seems to indicate that the real problem Senators have is just getting nominated. Once nominated, in a competitive race, senators seem to have just as good a record as anyone else.

[Common Sense Party]

1. So McCain's got it made.

:hide:

[skipos]

2. 2 senators elected president in 100 years

and neither of them defeated sitting presidents. In the last 30 years alone we have had 3 sitting presidents who were defeated by governors: Ford, Carter, HW Bush.

I find it is very obvious why senators have had a tougher time getting elected President. The biggest reason is that their voting records are easier to distort.

I am guessing your 08 favorite is a senator?

[liberalpragmatist]

3. Actually yes

But that's mostly because I'm not terribly impressed with the governors being offered - Vilsack and Richardson (although I will give them both a look). I would have been very interested in Govs. Warner or Rendell, had they run. I'd be interested in your avatar running too.

Ultimately, 6 sitting senators nominated in the last 100 years. 3 lost unwinnable races against an incumbent, 1 lost a winnable race against an incumbent.

Also, 6 sitting (or former) governors elected in the last 100 years, not including people who served as vice president before becoming president.

My point is that ultimately, not many senators have been nominated.

[skipos]

6. I don't agree with your "unwinnable/winnable" analysis at all

but hey, that's just my opinion. HW Bush was considered unbeatable after the Gulf War. George Allen was considered unbeatable a few months ago. But what happened? Good candidates, the right candidates, ran against them. The Gropinator in CA was considered beatable a few months ago, and coasted to re-election even with horrid approval numbers. Why? Because we ran the wrong kind of candidate against him.

Let me ask you this, if Kerry was a governor of MA and Edwards was a governor of NC, would they have gotten more votes? I think so. Sure, they'd get smeared the way all of our candidates are going to get smeared, but there would be a lot less material to work with (they voted to raise taxes 4352 times, they voted against body armor for our troops, blah blah blah).

On a side note, I'd also add that if Gore, Lieberman, Kerry or Edwards were from Ohio or Florida, they'd be sitting in the Whitehouse right now. Presidential candidates get about a 10% boost, VP candidates about a 5% boost, in their homestate.

There is so much that matters about our candidates, we have to consider more than just their positions. Any governor from a flippable red state gets an extra point in my book.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Dukakis was Governor of MA, his gubernatorial record certainly didn't hurt him

:sarcasm:

Governors have liabilities on their records just as Senators do even if they aren't as big as Willie Horton. Instead of the attack ads saying that he raised taxes 4000 times or he's the most liberal they will say "His state ranked 49th in such and such category according to this study" or he signed a massive tax increase.

[skipos]

15. And if Dukakis was a senator, we would have done even worse.

He was a bad campaigner and a unengaging personality.

LOTS of slime was thrown at Clinton,and Arkansas wasn't exactly the model state but he was a good campaigner and an engaging personality. If Clinton was a senator from MA, he would have won a lot fewer states, but he still would have beaten HW Bush, IMO.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. I agree with most of your analysis, but here's the thing

I highly doubt that Dukakis would've done worse as a Senator. Most people don't realize how close Dukakis was to actually becoming President.

Dukakis with all of his bad campaigning and unengaging personality had a 17 point lead over Bush coming out of the Democratic National Convention. Remember Bush was no rockstar campaigner himself, especially compared to Reagan. The Willie Horton ad single handedly brought the race to a tie. His performance in the debate sealed his fate and dropped him to 7 points behind Bush but the death penalty question would've not been as important without the Willie Horton ad.

Otherwise I agree, though. Clinton was so enganging that he could've won if he had been a Senator. Hence I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss Senators. If we do find one who is good at campaigning as Clinton, then I don't see why we should dismiss him just because he is a Senator.

[liberalpragmatist]

14. Alright, but even without the winnable/unwinnable analysis...

... I don't think it's as damning.

Firstly, in defense of the winnable/unwinnable aspect, I would just note the approval ratings of the presidents involved. You're right that candidates make a difference, but Johnson in '64, Nixon in '72, Reagan in '84 and FDR in '36, '40, and (more debatably) '44 had extremely high approval ratings and would likely have beat anybody. I think a better candidate would have made the races more competitive, but would likely still lost in most of those races. And I think the poor showings of Goldwater and McGovern were more the result of their own weaknesses as candidates rather than the fact that they were senators.

However, even if you don't split up winnable and unwinnable races, senators won 2, lost 4 out of the 6 races they were nominated in (winning 33% of the time). If you include Vice Presidents who had also served as senators, the results are 3 wins (4 with Gore) and 8 losses, 7 w/out Gore (meaning they won 36% of the time or 27% of the time)

For governors, the track record is 6 wins, 15 losses (winning 29% of the time).

[Ignacio Upton]

29. FDR and Johnson would have won no matter who ran (in '36 and '64)

Although FDR might have lost re-election in 1940 had WWII not looked like it would inevitably reach the U.S. (I read that there was a poll taken that showed a majority of voters would have voted for Wilkie in 1940, but because WWII was raging in Europe, they wanted someone they trusted on national security to keep the country afloat in case the war became more of a problem here. This was because the Depression hadn't fully ended, and there was a "time for change" feeling after having the same President for eight years.) With Johnson, he got a boosted from the aftermath of the Kennedy Assassination, and passed a series of initiatives in 1964, such as the Civil Rights Act and the Heller-Kennedy Tax Cut, which helped to drive the prosperity of the '60s.

As for Nixon in 1972, I would have to agree that it would have been tough to beat him. By using price controls he helped keep inflation off the political radar until after the election, and improving relations with the Soviets and China definitely helped him, but a stronger candidate (even Muskie) could have prevented the 49-state landslide that Nixon won in crushing McGovern.

[Ignacio Upton]

4. Those Senators ran against incumbent Presidents

Harding and Kennedy ran in open races. Harding even defeated James Cox, the Governor of his own state! JFK defeated Nixon, the sitting Vice President. I think that the "no Senator" rule won't apply in 2008 because there is no incumbent President and no clear favorite. Goldwater and McGovern were too extreme for voters, and Dole and Kerry were too bland (no offense to Kerry supporters, but that's how the voters perceived him.)

[Hippo_Tron]

7. I just read about the 1920 election, it's actually a great comparison for 2008

Don't get me wrong Warren Harding was a terrible President and I'm certain we can do better than him. But basically what Harding did was campaign against Wilson instead of against Cox which forced Cox to stray from Wilson's positions.

In 2008, whoever our nominee is, we need to campaign against Bush as much as we possibly can.

[napi21]

17. Yes, against Shrub & the entire Pub Party! It should be quite easy to

list a lot of examples of what they have done to the US in their reign of terror! All of their accomplishments would be easily recognized by all voters on all sides! if our candidate just makes a list of the "top 5".

1. The bankruptcy Bill
2. The donut hole
3. Torture
4. The war
5. Loss of jobs because of "fair trade agreements"

Each and every one of these attrocities were done because of a complicit Republican Congress!

We can discuss which failures should be in that top 5, but that'sthe kind of arguments that have to be made. Things that people recognize affected their own personal lives!

God knows,in the next 2 years, and after all the hearings, the list will grow emensly!

[Ignacio Upton]

23. Wilson was one of the most authoritarian Presidents in history after Bush

And a huge racist to boot. Yeah he was a progressive on economic issues, but his draconian Justice Department during WWI did shit that would make Bush, Ashcroft and Gonzales blush today. Our candidate would also be able to use the "return to normalcy" theme that Harding used in 1920 in contrast to the shit that Bush has gotten us into (of course, 9/11 has changed "normalcy" from its "pure" 1990's term, but we don't have to accept as radical a transformation as Bush is trying to force us to.)

[skipos]

8. Kennedy ran against Nixon, who was not an incumbent President.

Harding ran against Cox, who was not an incumbent President.
Why do you say "Those Senators ran against incumbent Presidents?"

There isn't a "no senator" rule, the rule is that senators have a tougher time getting elected president than governors. And as long as senators have a voting record, and 1000 page bills with poison pills, that won't change anytime soon.

[liberalpragmatist]

10. No, he's saying the senators who lost ran against incumbent presidents

Of the 6 nominated, the 4 running against incumbents lost, the 2 running open races won.

[skipos]

13. Ah,ok. But still, there are a few incumbent Presidents defeated by governors

IMO Governors will continue to generally outperform senators in presidential races.

[Ignacio Upton]

16. Governors are better for running against incumbents

In terms of open races it can go either way. One "exception" is when Dukakis ran in an open race as a Governor and still lost (but he was a terrible campaigner and wasn't a very inspiring candidate.)

People generally say that Senators can't win, but it depends on whether or not the candidate is running against an incumbent President. Each time the incumbent President was defeated in the 20th Century (1932, 1976, 1980, and 1992) the challenger was a Governor or someone who had Governor being their most recent office (FDR, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton.)

[liberalpragmatist]

20. Actually, in open races, all the governors nominated have lost

I don't think this actually has much to do with it, but governors were nominated in the following open-seat races:

1920: James Cox of Ohio (D)
1928: Al Smith of NY (D)
1952: Adlai Stevenson of Illinois (D)
1988: Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts (D)

ALL lost.

All the other governors who won beat incumbent presidents - Wilson over Taft (1912), FDR over Hoover (1932), Carter over Ford (1976), Reagan over Carter (1980), and Clinton over Bush (1992).

[Hippo_Tron]

27. You forgot one

2000: George W Bush of Texas (R)

[liberalpragmatist]

30. D'oh!

Of course.

Except that he didn't really win :)

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Right, it was a list of Governors who have lost presidential elections

George W Bush was one of them.

[skipos]

22. You didn't answer this question though

Do you think Kerry/Edwards have gotten more votes if they were both governors?

On a side note, you might be interested in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2964070

[liberalpragmatist]

25. Maybe

But they'd also perhaps have lost votes on national security; would Kerry have done as well in the first debate (on foreign policy) if he had been dealing with state-level issues?

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Plus parties have a habit of nominating the worst Senators they can possibly find

Barry Goldwater - batshit insane

George McGovern - Great man but was completely not cut out to take on the GOP smear machine

Bob Dole - Could put a corpse to sleep

[skipos]

9. And Hillary Clinton would fit well on that list IMO

Yeah, lets nominate someone who has 45% of America already committed to voting against her. Sweet!

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Yup I agree completely, although that doesn't mean I don't think we should nominate Senators at all

Frankly I'm not all that impressed with any of the current Senators that want to run. Maybe if they weren't so old we could draft Tom Harkin or Gary Hart both of which I think would do very well in a national election. Bob Kerrey would also be great if not for the problems he faced with the massacre in Vietnam.

The problem is that frankly I'm not impressed with any of the Governors that want to run. Schweitzer, yup I'd like to see him run but it won't happen. Sebelius... I've never seen her talk about national politics but I would certainly be willing to give her a shot.

The only Governor that people have seriously talked about that I like is Ed Rendell because he seems like the type of guy who would really take it to the GOP smear machine. But Rendell doesn't seem to be interested in running, either. I was impressed by how he just beat the crap out of that moron Lynn Swann in the last election.

[liberalpragmatist]

18. Rendell could be good

Although he has a Biden-like tendency to talk too much, meaning he has said some things that have gotten him into trouble.

Still, he has an overall good record as governor, is pretty popular, and is very personable.

Would he face problems in the South? He's very personable, like I said, but he's very obviously a working-class city boy. The last one of those we've had was Al Smith, and he didn't win.

I'd like to see him run though, but he's definitely not running. Rumor is he'll take a role on Hillary's campaign because he's very close friends with the Clintons.

[Ignacio Upton]

19. Please, no Rendell

1. He won re-election because Swann was an empty suit. Swann was actually beating him in the polls in the first fews months of the year.

2. He was the DNC Chairman who told Gore to concede in 2000.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Swann was beating him because he was a star, Rendell made people realize he was an empty suit

That's certainly something that Democrats in California have managed to do for two consecutive elections.

[DaveinMD]

26. Rendell

is enourmously popular in PA. Swann wasn't ever beating him. He got close in some early polls, but most people expected the blowout that actually occurred.

[Jack Rabbit]

28. Only two presidents were elected while sitting in the Senate

Warren G. Harding and JFK.

Andrew Johnson, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson all had distinguished careers in the Senate, but all served as Vice President and become president on the death of the predecessor of each.

Richard Nixon served briefly in the Senate (1951-53), but served eight years as Vice President and spent another eight years in the political wilderness before winning the office in 1968.

Since 1964, sitting Senators Goldwater, McGovern, and Kerry failed to take the White House, as did former Senators (and Vice Presidents) Humphrey and Mondale and Gore.

[liberalpragmatist]

31. I know; did you read the whole post?

Only 6 sitting senators (incl. Bob Dole) were nominated. 2 won, 4 lost.

If you include former Vice Presidents, 3 won, 8 lost (or 4 won, 7 lost if you want to say Al Gore won).

21 sitting or former governors were nominated; 6 won, 15 lost.

The bigger problem, like I said, is that senators have a hard time getting nominated.

[Jack Rabbit]

36. There's some with which I don't agree

Cox, Smith, Landon, Dewey in '44, and Stevenson in both '52 and '56 all lost arguably unwinnable races.

None of those were winnable. Cox was going down against Harding because most Americans were tired of Wilson's policies, especially his economic policies (the election took place during a recession). Smith was a Roman Catholic at a time when many Americans would never vote for one and Smith favored an end to Prohibition, which was not a popular stand in 1928; the unsuspecting nation thought the Republicans had brought prosperity and wished that to continue. Republican Hoover actually carried some Southern states, something that hadn't happened since Reconstruction. FDR was unbeatable. A pole that showed Landon leading in 1936 was taken by telephone at a time when only wealthy people, mostly Republicans, had them in their homes; it has been cited by modern statisticians as the classic example of biased sampling. In 1952, people were really tired of Truman and no Democrat, not even Adlai Stevenson, was going to win the White House. Ike's personal popularity four years later made his victory a foregone conclusion.

I also believe Dukakis' odds in 1988 were long.

In more recent years, the trend has been to have a sitting vice president run to succeed his predecessor, while before 1960 the vice presidency was a joke (Mother Barkley had two sons; one went to sea and the other became vice president; neither was heard from again). This cuts down on the number of either senators or governors nominated.

The reason a Senator has trouble getting nominated is that when a party smells blood (such as in the form of a vulnerable incumbent), the party -- including the grass roots -- start looking not necessarily for the best person but the most attractive candidate. A Senator with a national public record that can be attacked has more liabilities than a governor who can explain away (or spin away) any charges the opposition makes against his record. A governor is much less likely to have a "paper trial" than a Senator.

An exception to that might have been Ronald Reagan, who overcame a perception of extremism in 1980 (and, as a Californian, I would judge that reputation to be well deserved). That said more about Carter's vulnerability than Reagan's qualifications. Any Republican could have beaten Carter in 1980; most could have done so more easily than Reagan.

[liberalpragmatist]

37. I know those were unwinnable

That's what I said - Cox, Smith, Landon, Dewey in '44, and Stevenson in both '52 and '56 all lost arguably UNwinnable races.

[Ignacio Upton]

32. Don't forget Bob Dole

He was also a Senator (although technically former Senator, since he resigned during the election so he wouldn't have to multi-task.)


...Honestly, I think that 2008 is similar to 1920 or 1960, in that we have an open race. Senators have poor records running against incumbents, either because the Senators themselves were hopelessly bad candidates, or because they were running against popular Presidents. In open races, it's easier to prove yourself, even if you are a Senator. In contrast, Governors, who serve better as agents of change in fighting incumbent Presidents, are looked at with more skepticism when their opponent can also represent change in terms of perception. This cycle, I don't think that nominating a Senator will be a bad thing in an of itself, but if we nominate a Senator, it should be a someone who is a strong candidate. Hillary and Biden (and perhaps Obama?) have problems in this area for vastly different reason, while Edwards (who's not a sitting Senator anymore) and Byah also have flaws, but not as bad as the first three mentioned.

[Jack Rabbit]

35. Mea Culpa

I was actually saddened when Dole resigned from the Senate thinking that would give him a better shot at beating Clinton. First of all, it didn't and wasn't likely to give him any better chance, so it wasn't necessary. Second, in spite of not seeing eye to eye with Dole on policy issues (it's what makes him a Republican and me a Democrat), I thought he was a good majority leader who was capable of moving business through the Senate efficiently. He was much better than either of his successors, Trent Lott or Bill Frist.

[Ignacio Upton]

33. Don't forget Bob Dole

He was also a Senator (although technically former Senator, since he resigned during the election so he wouldn't have to multi-task.)


...Honestly, I think that 2008 is similar to 1920 or 1960, in that we have an open race. Senators have poor records running against incumbents, either because the Senators themselves were hopelessly bad candidates, or because they were running against popular Presidents. In open races, it's easier to prove yourself, even if you are a Senator. In contrast, Governors, who serve better as agents of change in fighting incumbent Presidents, are looked at with more skepticism when their opponent can also represent change in terms of perception. This cycle, I don't think that nominating a Senator will be a bad thing in an of itself, but if we nominate a Senator, it should be a someone who is a strong candidate. Hillary and Biden (and perhaps Obama?) have problems in this area for vastly different reason, while Edwards (who's not a sitting Senator anymore) and Bayh also have flaws, but not as bad as the first three mentioned.