Senators as Presidential Candidates - not such a bad deal.

[leyton]

Senators get knocked a lot as candidates who could never get elected President. The evidence is usually that only two men - Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy - have gone straight from the Senate to the White House, while a host of men - most recently Goldwater, McGovern, Dole, and Kerry - have lost.

I'd like to point out one difference between the winners and the losers. Kennedy and Harding both won an open seat, defeating the incumbent party's nominee. Goldwater, McGovern, and Dole all challenged popular Presidents who couldn't have lost the election if they tried. True, McGovern and Dole ran less than spectacular campaigns, but in the end, Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton were going to be reelected on their own merits no matter who challenged them. Kerry may have been hurt by some of his votes, particularly Iraq war votes, but we must remember that Bush's base was 100% secure and that Bush ran an excellent campaign and that nonetheless nineteen states broke against him in wartime. All told, these guys lost, but three were in non-races and the fourth lost for a number of reasons.

Would a governor be better? All other things equal, yes, it would be better for us to nominate a governor. But some of our most viable candidates - Russ Feingold, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman (haha) - come from the Senate. We should give them due consideration.

[crispini]

1. Don't forget BOXER! nt

[B0S0X87]

2. We should give them consideration... but I'm cautious of nominating one

It is so incredibly easy to use a senator's voting record against them. Some reporter asked Chuck Hagel if he was going to run for the wh and he said something like, "I'd like to, but I'm sure there are enough voting discrepancies in my twenty year career for my opponents to sink me with."

[moggie12]

3. Bayh served two terms as Governor & had very high approval ratings n/t