When was the last time an insider defeated an incumbent president?

[Walt Starr]

I seriously cannot find a single instance of this happening. An insider for the purposes of this question is a sitting Congressman or Senator.

Every instance I can find of a sitting Congressman or Senator running against an incumbent president, the incumbent has always won.

Prove me wrong. Show me one case of a sitting Congressman or Senator who has defeated an incumbent president.

[sangh0]

1. Clinton, in 1992

Clinton was a founding member of the DLC with many insider connections. He beat the incumbent

Schumer beat D'Amato.

[Walt Starr]

3. Nope, not an insider

Insiders are sitting congressmen or Senators.

Clinton was an outsider and ran as an outsider.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. He was the former chairman of the DLC

But they are just a bunch of outsiders!

[Walt Starr]

12. Insiders are inside the beltway

Senators, congressmen, presidents and vice presidents who currently hold the office are the insiders.

There has never been a sitting Senator or Congressman who defeated an incumbant president.

[sangh0]

16. Whatever you say, Walt

I have absolutely no problem with your wacky re-definitions

[Walt Starr]

24. I'm just going off the definition of "insider" from the Lessig blog

There has never been a sitting Congressman or Senator who defeated an incumbent president.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. By that definition, Kucinich is an "insider"

I don't think that either his supporters or detractors would characterize him that way.

[Walt Starr]

50. Yep, he sure is

Kucinich is inside the beltway as a sitting Congressman, ergo, he is an insider.

[sangh0]

54. And Bush* is an outsider

.

[Walt Starr]

60. *WAS* an outsider

He is now an insider as a sitting president.

I believe a post down lower in the thread came up with the one and only instance of an insider defeating an incumbent. It would be when Vice President Thomas Jefferson defeated the incumbent John Adams.

[sangh0]

66. "a sitting Congressman or Senator" - Your words

Nothing about a sitting President

[Walt Starr]

70. How the heck does a sitting president defeat an incumbent president?

Bush was an outsider in 2000, although he was not running against an incumbent president.

How is this valid to the originial question?

[sangh0]

71. "a sitting Congressman or Senator" - Your words

You should have asked that question BEFORE you embarrassed yourself with that made up definition.

[Walt Starr]

75. Sangh0, really, this has absolutely nothing to do with the question

and if we continue this way, then even Thomas Jefferson was not an insider who defeated an incumbent.

Bush does not enter into the question because Bush cannot run against himself.

[sangh0]

77. Yes it does

It shows how ridiculous your "definition" is because according to it, a President can't be considered an outsider even though he fits the definition

[Walt Starr]

81. You will see that this was for the purposes of the discussion in the

intial post.

It is not ludicrous. It is a statement of fact.

Although many have tried, not a single sitting congressman or Senator has been able to defeat an incumbent president, and we are about to nominate yet another who will not defeat the incumbent.

Your ridiculous argument about Bush has not bearing. He cannot run against himself, ergo, his status does not enter into the question.

[sangh0]

82. A definition that only works in such a limited conditions is not valid

It's obvious to quite a few of us here that your definiton is opportunistic.

[Walt Starr]

83. Then answer the question, sangh0

Are you able to name a single sitting congressman or Senator who defeated an incumbent president?

Just one?

[sangh0]

85. Why should I?

Most of us seem to realize that it's easy to stack the deck by picking and choosing which factors to emphasize.

[Walt Starr]

88. The point is very blunt and extremely valid, Sangh0

It's been tried many times and many ways and has never been successful.

No sitting Senator has ever been able to defeat an incumbent president even though it has been attempted on numerous occasions.

Only two sitting Senators have ever been elected to the presidency in the history of the nation, and then only when they ran against another candidate who was not an incumbent president.

The point is extremely valid in a year when the question of electability is considered the most important issue. History itself has shown, sitting Senators are unelectable against incumbent poresidents.

The Senate is not a good pool for potential presidents, as history has proven.

[sangh0]

91. The point is ridiculous

because it depends on a definition that leads to declaring Bush* an outsider.

[Walt Starr]

93. BUSH WAS AN OUTSIDER

and became president running as an outsider.

Clinton was an outsider and won running as an outsider.

Reagan was an outsider and won running as an outsider.

Carter was an outsider and won running as an outsider.

My signature is filled with sitting Senators who tried to run against incumbent presidents and FAILED MISERABLY!

[sangh0]

95. Bush* was a BFEE/PNAC/KenLay/PatRobertson/Delay/Lott

insider.

Those people won't be voting for Nader

[Walt Starr]

97. Yeah, but you're convincing me maybe I should

Thanks, strike the Senator off my list of potentials for November.

[library_max]

118. Wait a minute. You're going to vote against Kerry in the general election

because you think he's unelectable???

All hail the king of logic!

:wtf:

[mb7588a]

18. DLC chair in 1992 was as inside as it got, imho.

prove us wrong?

[Walt Starr]

27. Read the beginning post

Sitting Congressman or Senator is specified in that post. Bringing up DLC etc. is going off topic.

Prove me wrong. Show me an instance of a sitting Congressman or Senator who has defeated an incumbent president.

Just one instance is all I'm asking for.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. Show me an instance where a former Governor of a small state

was elected President.

[Walt Starr]

52. Bill Clinton, 1992

Arkansas is a small state.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. He was a current Governor, not a former Governor

And the population of Vermont is less than 1/4 Arkansas'.

[leyton]

123. Actually, for the purposes of this question,

"small state" will be defined as a state with a population of 616,593 or less. And with a population of 616,592, Vermont clearly qualifies, and Arkansas clearly does not. Just thought I'd clarify that.

[bearfartinthewoods]

25. you think poopy was not an insider?

bwahahaha

[Walt Starr]

34. Who is "poopy"?

???

:wtf:

:shrug:

[sangh0]

55. Poppy Bush - GHW Bush

he was our 41st President

[bearfartinthewoods]

94. sorry typo....poopy/poppy....works for me.....GHWbush

[Walt Starr]

109. Poppy never ran against an incumbent

Poppy was an insider when he ran as he was the sitting Vice President.

[jsw_81]

44. A few points:

Outsiders who lost presidential elections:

- Governor Dukakis in 1988
- Governor Stevenson in 1952 and 1956
- Governor Dewey in 1944 and 1948
- Mr. Willkie in 1940 (he never held political office)
- Governor Landon in 1936
- Governor Smith in 1928
- Governor Cox in 1920
- Judge Parker in 1904
- Governor Tilden in 1876*

Insiders who won presidential elections:

- Vice President Gore in 2000**
- Vice President Bush in 1988
- Vice President Nixon in 1968
- Senator Kennedy in 1960
- Senator Harding in 1920
- Secretary Taft in 1908
- Senator Harrison in 1888
- Congressman Garfield in 1880

As you can see, plenty of "outsiders" have lost, and plenty of "insiders" have won. Dean would hardly have any kind of magical "outsider" advantage if nominated.

*Tilden won the popular vote and only "lost" the electoral college vote when a GOP-dominated commission gave the election to Hayes.

**Gore won the popular vote against Bush but had the election stolen by a GOP-dominated Supreme Court.

[John_H]

37. Governors not Washington insiders. A joke, right?

Tell the landlords who rent them all OFFICE SPACE on North Capitol St. in DC that. Tell the 5-10 staffers they all have in DC that. Tell the peoiple who raise millions for them in DC that. Sorry. Governors are every bit as much insiders as any other politician in a major office.

[Walt Starr]

40. Definition of insider from the Lessig blog

Can you answer the question? Can you name a singel sitting Congressman or Senator who was able to defeat an incumbent president?

Just one name is all I ask.

[John_H]

58. No. And I couldn't name a sitting Governor to beat an incumbent

in over 100 years before 1992. Or a university president to win an election ever before Wilson. Or someone whose state began with the letter V since Monroe.

But you're right, Walt. We need a GENERAL!

[Walt Starr]

61. A General would stand a chance, absolutely!

Clark is definitely an outsider and would be seen as an agent for change.

BTW, wasn't Carter the sitting governor of Georgia in '76?

[John_H]

64. Carter? Don't think so. Maybe. Can we call Ford an incumbent? Seriously,

your point is well taken. I'm a little leery of Kerry because his record is so extensive. My main beef was calling a governor an outsider.

[Walt Starr]

65. ABSOLUTELY!!!!

ford was ABSOLUTELY the incumbent president in '76. There is no doubt about it, he held the office of president and was running for the office, ergo, he was incumbent.

[wyldwolf]

106. Oh, I get it. YOU define what an "insider" is...

:eyes:

[Walt Starr]

107. Not me

Insiders hold elected offices inside the beltway, ergo, the President, Vice President, Congressmen, and Senators are insiders. Everybody else is an outsider.

[Capn Sunshine]

4. Clinton was a governor, not an establishment insider

DLC or no, he was not an inside the beltway 20 year pol.

[Walt Starr]

6. Hell, I'll even accept an inside the beltway 2 year pol

I cannot find a single case where a sitting congressman of Senator has defeated an incumbant president.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

46. Yep. And I'll bet Clinton's rooting for Kerry too.

[Capn Sunshine]

2. add " 21st century Bob Dole"

aka John Kerry
:nuke:

[robsul82]

5. Hehehe...

I still dig Kerry as Our Bob Dole, lol...

Kerry 2004 - It Better Not Rain.

Later.

RJS

[Walt Starr]

9. If Kerry defeats Bush, it would indeed be historical

The first Senator ever in the history of the United States of America to defeat an incumbant president.

That sure would be an historical moment.

Too bad, it's kind of sad we are betting the future of the nation on an unprecedented event occurring.

[codegreen]

7. ?

ah, the tyranny of historical statistics.

the future be damned.

[Hoosier Democrat]

8. It's NEVER happened

If you look at Democratic winners since 1884, ALL except one of them who were not the incumbent (like Truman or LBJ), were GOVERNORS: Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Carter, and Clinton.

The only exception was JFK, and his plurality of the poplar vote was only 20% of what Al Gore's was!

Food for thought

[Walt Starr]

10. Add to that the fact that JFK, a sitting Senator

was not running against an incumbant president, although his predecessor, Adlai Stevenson who was also a sitting Senator, was!

[Hoosier Democrat]

13. Need to correct you, there:

Adlai Stevenson, the Dem nominee in 1952 and 1956 was NOT a Senator. He was the Governor of Illinois in 1952.

It was his son, Adlai III, who served as a US Senator from Illinois later on.

[Walt Starr]

14. Ahhhh, thanks

Although he only served a single term as governor of Illinois (ended in 1952).

I'll remove him from my sig.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Yes, Stevenson was "an outsider" in the same sense as Clinton

In fact, there have been only two incumbents (Ford and Bush Sr.) defeated in the past 50 years. They were both defeated by governors--both of whom had a hell of a time with Congress, because they didn't understand how that body operated and who could make your life easy and who could make your life miserable.

As the supporters of candidates other than Kerry are constantly saying, two is a mighty small sample.

[jobycom]

23. You forgot Carter

Also defeated by a former governor.

Not that it matters one bit. History is not a predictor of the future, or we'd all win the next lottery by betting the same numbers that won last time.

[IowaBiker]

98. Who cares?

And I'm so tired of this "insider" term and argument anyway. It's garbage. Look at the last "outsider;" Bush, what a clueless and dishonest bum.

If this is what an outsider is, I want in insider. This outsider has no idea how to use our intellegence agencies and has blown it at least twice now.

Right now we need the best candidate, and so far the voters think that is John Kerry.

--Brian

[Walt Starr]

99. The insider/outsider issue is directly linked to the "electable" issue

History has proven, sitting Senators are unelectable against incumbent presidents.

It has been tried and tried and tiried. Every attempt at running a sitting Senator against an incumbent president has failed miserably.

2004 will be no exception.

[PAMod]

114. 39% of them in two states, anyway.

[Walt Starr]

115. Even smaller percentage than that

39% of registered democrats who bothered to turn out for a caucus or primary in two states.

[jobycom]

15. Name me on candidate named Bush who has ever won reelection?

Name me one presidential candidate that George W. Bush has ever beaten in an election, insider or out.

Name me one president who has ever won after having 90% approval ratings at his two year point.

Name me one Viet Nam vet who has ever lost a presidential election? (Gore won).


This nation was built on firsts. No matter who gets nominated, you could come up with some stat to prove he couldn't win.

[Walt Starr]

36. All I'm asking for is the name of a single

sitting Congressman or Senator who was able to defeat an incumbent president.

Just one.

Your historical analogy is a strawman.

[jobycom]

62. So is your question

You set it up in such a way to prove only your point. That's the definition of a strawman. I answered the same way. Seems fair. Reminds me of all the Super Bowl stats thrown around to prove why one or the other team can't win.

[jsw_81]

19. Here's one

Only a year after finishing his term in the U.S. Senate, Benjamin Harrison defeated incumbent President Grover Cleveland in 1888.

"Every instance I can find of a sitting congressman or Senator running against an incumbant (sic) president, the incumbant (sic) has always win (sic)."

Maybe so, but Bush was never elected president, so he doesn't really count.

Here's something else to think about: No president has ever been re-elected after losing the popular vote. Therefore, Bush is doomed. See, we Kerry supporters can play games with historical trivia too.

[Walt Starr]

22. Harrison was not a sitting Senator

He had finished his one and only term as a Senator.

Close, but no cigar.

[jsw_81]

48. He had been a senator only a few months before

And was called "Senator Harrison." That sounds rather "insiderish" if you ask me.

[Walt Starr]

32. Bush is the sitting president of the United States

That makes him the incumbent.

[library_max]

108. No, Bush is the lying president of the United States.

That makes him the recumbent.

On edit: Credit where credit is due. Thanks for the magnificent straight line.

[Walt Starr]

110. ROFLMAO!

That's what this thread needed, some levity!

[blm]

20. Every 40+ years, a Senator is elected president. Did you know that?

Well....since Kennedy was the last Senator to win the presidency......it's TIME again.

[JaneQPublic]

51. Only Two Sitting Senators Have EVER Been Elected President.

John Kennedy and Warren G. Harding.

And, coincidentally, neither had a second term.

[Walt Starr]

53. And neither ran against an incumbent

Curiouser and curiouser.

[jsw_81]

57. Both presidents from Vermont were miserable failures

Therefore, Dean would be a miserable failure too. This game is fun!

[Walt Starr]

59. would you care to name the presidents who were from Vermont?

Coolidge was born in Vermont, but served as governor of Massachusetts.

[jsw_81]

67. Arthur and Coolidge

Chester Arthur was a joke of a president who couldn't even win re-nomination in 1884; Calvin Coolidge (who was born, raised, and eventually buried near his family home in Vermont), helped lay the foundation for the Great Depression.

[sangh0]

69. LOL!

So much for Walt's history lesson

[Walt Starr]

74. Laugh away, under his criteria Dean is a New Yorker

Arthur and Coolidge were born in Vermont, but never served in the Vermont state government.

Howard Dean was born in New York City.

[Walt Starr]

73. Ahhhhhh, then under your criteria, Howard Dean is a New Yorker.

Howard Dean is a New Yorker, having been born in New York City.

Coolidge was born in Vermont, but served as governor of Massachusetts.

Arthur was born in Vermont and like Coolidge, never was elected to public office in Vermont.

[sangh0]

76. And how many NY outsiders have won the Presidency

against an incumbent?

[Walt Starr]

78. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the last to have that honor

He defeated the incumbent, Herbert Hoover, in 1932.

Edited to add: He was born in Hyde Park, New York in 1882.

[sangh0]

86. FDR was NOT an outsider

.

[Walt Starr]

89. FDR WAS an outsider

He RAN as an outsider and was elected BECAUSE he was an outsider. In fact, Roosevelt was NEVER "inside" the beltway until after being elected to the presidency.

He never served in either House of Congress.

The closest he came to being inside the beltway was as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. That's an appointed position for those who are counting. While he was nominated as the Vice Presidential candidate in 1920, he never became Vice President.

He was elected as governor of New York in 1928. He ran for president while serving as governor of New York in 1932.

He was as outside as it gets.

[sangh0]

92. Assistant Secretary of the Navy

I believe his office was in Washington DC.

Yep, that's outside DC

[Walt Starr]

96. Did he hold that office when he ran?

No?

Didn''t think so, but thanks for playing.

Oh, and for the record, he wasn't a sitting Senator when he ran against an incumbent, unlike all those sitting Senators who have run against incumbents and failed.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

105. No, I'm not

and if you bother looking it up, an insider IS somebody who holds an elected position in Washington. The President, Vice President, Members of the House, and Members of the Senate are all insiders.

Everybody else in the country is an outsider.

[sangh0]

111. Name one DU insider (besides yourself)

who thinks your "definition" is NOT ridiculous

[Walt Starr]

117. There are three DU insiders

and I am not one of them.

[library_max]

120. Way to dodge the question. /nt

[library_max]

113. Both of them died in office. /nt

[auntpattywatty]

21. Just proves Dean - a Governor not an insider - could win the election and

Kerry - an insider for 30 years- cannot!

[jobycom]

29. Oh yeah, name the last time an unemployed doctor beat an incumbent

It's former governor Dean, not Governor Dean.

[Walt Starr]

38. Name outsiders who had served as governors to defeat an incumbent

over the last thirty years.

Give up?

James Carter - '76
Ronald Reagan - '80
William Clinton - '92

[jsw_81]

72. See my post #44

Lots and lots of outsiders have lost presidential elections. Your theory is bunk.

[Walt Starr]

80. You are correct about outsiders losing to incumbents

but not one insider has defeated an incumbent. I am still correct on that point (unless you count Thomas Jefferson, but sangh0 argues differently even thou I will allow it).

[DemPopulist]

26. Bad examples

Stevenson '56 - Not a sitting congressman or Senator, but the incumbent governor of Illinois.

McGovern and Goldwater were senators but very little of their negative image stemmed from being "Washington insiders"; they lost because they were largely opposed by the Establishment in their own parties and viewed as too radical by the general electorate. (Quick comparison: If Kucinich somehow won the nomination, would people really perceive him as a "Washington insider"? Come on!)

When Mondale ran against Reagan, he was neither a sitting Senator or Congressman but a former VP who'd been out of office for four years.

Dole is the best example of a quintessential Washington insider running against an incumbent, as he was both a long-serving senator and a member of the leadership. But even he would be technically disqualified under your standards, since he actually stepped down from Congress a few months before the '96 election (that was his dramatic "shake-up" move).

Truthfully, senators and congressmen don't beat presidents because they usually have trouble winning the nomination, for various reasons.

[Walt Starr]

41. You are correct about Stevenson

which if you had read the thread you would recognize I had admitted I was incorrect.

Now, go ahead, name the sitting Congressman or Senator who was able to defeat an incumbent president.

[TexasSissy]

28. Depends on definition of insider.

Someone whose campaign is run by an insider? That candidate is not an outsider.

Let's see...someone who actively seeks endorsements from Washington insiders? Nope, that's not an outsider candidate.

Seems like the only outsiders in this race are....well, only one: Kucinich. That's not who I'm supporting, but I think he's the only true outsider. Clark would be next closest thing to an outsider.

[Walt Starr]

42. Read the initial post

The definition of Insider for the purposes of this thread is a sitting Congressperson or Senator.

Name one.

[John_H]

30. Who was the last outsider to win the Presidency? Washington.

Jeez. Every President has been a FIXTURE in their party's establishment before they even thought of running.

To call a governor a washington outsider is a joke. They all have offices and 5-10 staffers in DC.

[Walt Starr]

45. Read the initial post

I set the definition of the term for this thread as a sitting congressman or Senator.

The last outsider to defeat an incumbant under that definition was Clinton.

Before that was Reagan.

Before that was Carter.

Now, name one instance in American history where a sitting Congressman or Senator was able to defeat an incumbent president.

[bigtree]

31. That was then. this is now.

Let's get busy and make some history here!

[leyton]

84. In 1960, the pundits asked this:

Can a Catholic become President?

And we found out the answer, of course.

[Toby109]

33. So?

That just means we're due.

:evilgrin:

[NoPasaran]

35. 1800: Vice President Thomas Jefferson

defeated President John Adams.

True, not a sitting Congressman or Senator... but I think VP should count.

[Walt Starr]

47. Not a sitting Congressman or Senator

and because of the constitutional requirements for somebody to become a vice president, I think that instance should be allowed as an "insider"

But we still have no name of a sitting Congressman or Senator to defeat an incumbent president.

[leyton]

126. Actually, Jefferson *was* a Senator.

As Vice President he would have been President of the Senate. Though not elected to the Senate, he had an important role in that body.

[jobycom]

39. Here's a serious answer as to why that doesn't matter

Usually when an incumbent is defeated, it is because people want change, and are sick of the entire system. In this case, we had a very successful system until the current squatter took over. So, people may not be as eager to throw out the whole system as they are to throw out the sitting president. People would love to return to the Clinton era, so an insider has a chance.

Also, since Bush's primary weaknesses are in his inability to handle the job, not necessarily in his "vision," an experienced insider candidate might seem more appealing.

We'll see. Depends on many factors, though I doubt historical trivia will be one of them. Reagan was supposed to die in office, remember?

[Walt Starr]

56. Here's a serious rebuttal as to why this matters greatly

Using your own argument, when incumbents are defeated it is because people want change. The reason a sitting Congressman or Senator cannot defeat an incumbent is because people see electing them as just more of the same.

They see sitting Congressmen and Senators as part of the same problem resulting in their dislike for the sitting President, so they stay home in droves convinced they cannot effect change in this election and will wait out another four years to a time when they might be able to effect change.

[jobycom]

128. That's weird, you just restated the argument I argued against

without seeming to realize I was arguing against it, and without adding anything that I didn't already cover.

So my answer to your post is still my post above it.

[leyton]

68. Why don't you retitle the thread, then?

(None comes to mind, by the way, so no need to restate your original post in reply to mine.)

And make the question, "When was the last time a sitting legislator defeated an incumbent president?" Obviously your definition is too narrow and somewhat misleading, so why not change the title of your thread?

I think it's pretty obvious that you're trying to prop up Dean as the outsider (which he is not, being former chairman of the DGA and having been endorsed by hordes of congressmen) and trying to strike down Kerry and Edwards on the grounds of them being insiders. Edwards is not an insider, seeing as he has only been in the Senate for five years. Kerry is an insider, but that's not going to hurt him greatly, should he get the nomination.

Oh yeah, one question for you: how many incumbent presidents have been challenged by sitting congressmen/Senators? LBJ and Clinton and Nixon are the only recent ones that come to mind; Dole lost because of Clinton's popularity and Goldwater lost because he was so right-wing. I don't know why McGovern lost, but it probably has little to do with the horrible social stigma that comes from serving in the Senate.

I suggest you check out this for further information: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3fs8i/air/pres2004.html. You'll see that with a small enough set of data, you can come up with a mathematical formula that fits the data, no matter how ridiculous.

[rumguy]

79. Edwards is not an "insider" in the same way Kerry is...

[SaveElmer]

87. Closest probably Kennedy over Nixon

Kennedy a U.S. Senator, Nixon Vice-President.

[Walt Starr]

90. Nixon was not the incumbent president

So close, but no cigar.

[SaveElmer]

101. Which I did mention in my post dude...gotta read the whole thing

:-)

[Walt Starr]

103. I did, I was giving you a

close but no cigar.

;-)

[library_max]

102. When is the last time a candidate whose last name began with "D"

was elected president?

Dole lost, Dukakis lost, Dewey lost.

When was the last time electoral trivia determined the outcome of an actual presidential election?

[Walt Starr]

104. Strawman

That does not go to electability, however, experience in the Senate being detrimental to a candidate unseating an incumbent does go to the question of electability.

[library_max]

112. But that's your opinion and your opinion only.

You have no facts to prove that the one thing affects electability and the other doesn't. Nobody whose last name begins with D has ever been elected president of the U.S. - that's a fact. You have to distort pretty hard to say that no U.S. Senator has ever beat an incumbent - stretch the definition of "sitting" to the breaking point to exclude Harrison.

And wouldja please look up "straw man" in a dictionary??? It doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Walt Starr]

116. My opinion in this case is uspported with historical precedent

It has been tried again and again and every time it has been tried, it failed.

[library_max]

121. So is mine.

Well, my opinion is supported with historical precedent. I don't know what "uspported" means.

But likewise, people whose names begin with D have run for president and every time they have failed.

[rpf113]

119. Remember...

Al Gore was the first sitting 2 term Vice President to lose to a challenger.

Political rules are made to be broken.

[Adjoran]

122. The ONLY sitting congressman or senator

ever elected President was John F. Kennedy.

[jsw_81]

125. Wrong

Congressman James Garfield (R) was elected in 1880, and Senator Warren Harding (R) was elected in 1920.

[leyton]

124. By the way, there is a mistake in your sig.

Bob Dole was not a sitting Senator at the time of the 1996 election. Thus he was not an 'insider' as you claim.

[leyton]

127. I think your definition of "insider" does not hold.

Obviously, we can look at Clinton, chairman of the DLC and former chairman of the Democratic Governor's Association. Clearly, he was an insider.

And then we can look at Abraham Lincoln, who you would say was an outsider in 1860 because he was not a sitting congressman. But in 1858, he was probably the most prominent Republican in the country, because he expressed its positions while he campaigned for the Senate and debated Stephen Douglas. Lincoln lost the election, but was so much a fixture in his party that with one term in Congress under his belt, he got the nomination. The center of the Republican party... not a sitting Congressman... outsider or insider? I say insider.

Just two examples of how your definition does not hold. And please do not tell me to go look up the word 'insider,' because obviously whatever definition you are using was meant to be a guideline and not an absolute truth.