Our "top tier" candidates are, unfortunately, all senators.

[calteacherguy]

Their only "leadership" experience (with the exception of Obama, who served in the state legislature) is their time in the senate.

It has been proven that senators will always have a more difficult time winning than real leaders (meaning those who have actually led) with a proven track record such as governors, generals, or (perhaps this time around) current or former mayors of large cities.

It's unfortunate we have nothing but senators to chose from in our "top tier." Hope that changes soon.

We need some proven leaders.

[merci_me]

1. I don't care about political experience as such......

I'm more concerned about lack of diplomcatic and executive "buck stops here" type of experience. For that reason, at this particular point, I'm looking at Bill Richardson, who has the resume.

[Schema Thing]

2. Not very reassuring, is it?

Considering past history.

[Bucky]

3. The "senators can't get elected" meme is about as profound as the old "Zero Factor" predictors

When I was a kid, everyone was absolutely convinced Reagan was going to die in office because the six or seven presidents before who'd been elected in Zero years all died in office. It was, of course, a stupid thesis (self delete acknowledgement of the Guido Sarducci Corollary to the Zero Theory).

You need a few more data points to demonstrate there's not just some stupid coincidence in the random factors that produce desired or feared outcomes. You say senators can't be elected because they haven't been real leaders. I say bullshit. Senators are on the forefront of developing policy and reviewing the performance in office of the executive branch. They've been analyzing, addressing, and dealing with all the issues that will confront the next president. They're in the perfect position to be leaders.

In fact, just the fact that they've been elected is amble demonstration of their leadership. Can you produce a crowd? Can you convince a crowd? Can you motivate bunches of people in the democracy to embrace your ideas and lobby their other representatives to support you? These are the essential tests of leadership in a democracy. And anybody who can get a bunch of votes has already demonstrated their leadership.

As to the idea that only former executives should run for president--the idea that governors can only be elected, again I point out that there's just not enough data points to draw such a simple conclusion. It might help a little in making a sales pitch to voters, it might prevent a couple of attacks on "flip flopping" based on old procedural votes. But in the end it wasn't their job titles that kept Bob Dole in '96 or John Kerry in '04 from winning.

Yes, in recent memory, we've had four governors or ex-governors and zero senators elected president. But we've also had two vice presidents and one ex vice president elected. I'll argue that those seven data points are not sufficient to draw a conclusion. If governors are so inevitable, why was Dean rejected? Why was Dukakis? Why was Lamar Alexander?

The theory is popular conventional wisdom because it's easy to understand. The reality is that the "governors, not senators" arugment is always just one election away from being as pointless as flat earth theories.

[Awsi Dooger]

4. You're mixing references

Which is familiar on DU lately, failing to differentiate between general election realities and primary numbers.

Just because governors like Dean and Alexander were denied the nomination doesn't mean they wouldn't have been superior November candidates than the ones who defeated them. Primary voters are routinely idiotic. In '96 I was much more worried about Alexander than Dole, even though I was sure Clinton was safe.

Being governor is not a cure all or automatic ticket to the White House but I'd damn sure prefer that background to senator, everything else being equal.

Frankly, DU seems to have a simpleton preference toward senators. They are high profile and on TV regularly. They debate specific issues that are front and center. So it's natural to assign great things to them and overlook all the weaknesses.

The zero years stuff was preposterous. So was the Redskins game criteria. But pointing to specific accomplishments as leader of a state is something that voters apply to choice for president, and that will always be the case. For one thing, governor approval ratings are higher on average than favorable approval numbers among senators. That has been the case for as long as I've followed politics and it will continue. Look at how many Democratic governors in red states were re-elected by overwhelming margin in '06.

[Telly Savalas]

5. But everything else isn't equal.

Given the numerous factors determining results of presidential elections, trying to pin losses on the Senatorial experience of candidates is the simpleton preference, especially when one considers that this is based on a tiny sample size of about 10 or so elections.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. The key thing in your argument is "All things being equal"

The fact is that most of our Governors with potential were elected in 2004-2006, meaning that they need more time in office before they run for President. Democrats did horribly in the 2002 Gubernatorial elections and not particularly well in 2000 or 1998 either, leaving us with a crop of second term Governors and former Governors that, for the most part, don't have what it takes.

Bill Richardson is probably the most impressive Governor elected in 2002 (maybe Ed Rendell rivals him) and look how horribly he has done in the debates. You can't win an election in the TV era if you are as bad on TV as Bill Richardson is.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Great analysis Bucky

[mitchum]

6. And we've progressed so well under all of the former governors?

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Complete bullshit

The problem with senators is that we always nominate ones that are crappy politicians. Bobby Kennedy, Frank Church, Birch Bayh, and Garty Hart all could've won a presidential election if we had nominated them.