Senators vs. Governors

[liberalpragmatist]

Up through this election, the CW has always been that "senators can't win" and that we need to nominate governors.

Can we drop that bit of CW now?

It's true that governors have historically been nominated and elected more often, but keep in mind that prior to the 18th Amendment in 1914, senators were not directly elected.

Since 1914, however, the numbers are far more evenly balanced:

5 Governors have been elected president. (FDR, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush.)
3 Senators have been elected president. (Harding, Kennedy, Obama.)

Looking at nominees, since 1914, 13 governors have been nominated by a major party for president:

1. James Cox (D-Ohio) - 1920
2. Al Smith (D-NY) - 1928
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D-NY) - 1932
4. Alf Landon (R-Kan.) - 1936
5. Tom Dewey (R-NY) - 1944
6. Tom Dewey (R-NY) - 1948
7. Adlai Stevenson (D-Ill.) - 1952
8. Adlai Stevenson (D-Ill.) - 1956
9. Jimmy Carter (D-Ga.) - 1976
10. Ronald Reagan (R-Calif.) - 1980
11. Michael Dukakis (D-Mass.) - 1988
12. Bill Clinton (D-NY) - 1992
13. George W. Bush (R-Tex.) - 2000

5/13 won, or 38.5%

Since 1914, 8 senators have been nominated:

1. Warren Harding (R-Ohio) - 1920
2. John F. Kennedy (D-Mass.) - 1960
3. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) - 1964
4. George McGovern (D-SD) - 1972
5. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) - 1996
6. John Kerry (D-Mass.) - 2004
7. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) - 2008
8. John McCain (R-Ariz.) - 2008

3/8 have won or 37.5%.

What does this tell us? I think what it tells us are two things:

(1) Governors *might* have an easier time just being nominated for president.
(2) But in the general election, I don't think most voters give a damn whether someone was a governor, a senator, or a VP. Simply put, once you get the nomination, the candidate's skills as a candidate matter far more.

So next time we're looking for a nominee -- in 2016 -- simply look for the best candidate and don't try to determine whether someone's more electable than someone else because they're a senator or a governor.