2008 Democratic candidate should be a governor

[Meeker Morgan]

Still to early for a name, but if the official Democrats are smart, the candidate will be a governor, not a senator.

We tend to win running governors. The same is true for the pugs.

Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon did not run against governors.

Carter, Reagan. Governors.

Elder Bush did not run against a governor when he won, but Carter beat him. Governor.

And Bill Clinton got it twice. Governor.

Nothing against Hillary et al, but that's the way I see it.

Are there any genuinely liberal Democratic governors in the South maybe?

[RubyDuby in GA]

1. They keep throwing Mark Warner's name around

He'll be speaking at our JJ Dinner next Tuesday, so I'll reserve judgement on him until then.

[cidliz2004]

2. I brought this up a couple of days ago, Senator vs. Governor

Carter, Regan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2

All Governors with the exception of Bush1.

Senators have baggage with their voting records and don't have as much in common with the everyday people.

As someone just said, Senators have too much "Washington Think" and are rather out of touch with mainstream


Kerry was multi millionaire status, as was Edwards with his couple of mansions worths a few million each... Not exactly on same level as everyday Democrat or American.

Last elected Senator...Kennedy and by a hair at that.

[demosincebirth]

3. How about Warner? from Va.

[Dave Sund]

4. Governors

Bush ran against a governor, Dukakis, when he won, but Clinton beat him. Bush was, of course, a Vice President. As was Nixon.

Bush - Governor
Clinton - Governor
Bush - Vice President
Reagan - Governor
Carter - Governor
Ford - Unelected
Nixon - Vice President
Johnson - Vice President/President
Kennedy - Senator
Eisenhower - General
Truman - Vice President/President
Roosevelt - Governor

Put it this way: executive experience is almost a prerequisite of the job. Only one person without executive experience has been elected in the past seventy years.

[kevsand]

5. ...or a General

;-)

[AwakeAtLast]

6. Oh God! Does that mean my Governor could be President?

I live in IN with my Bitch Mitch! :scared:

Oh, God, I hope not! He's twice as bad as Bush ever thought about being.

My head hurts just thinking about it. :nuke:

[demcatholic95]

7. Wisconsin has Jim Doyle

Jim Doyle is a great man. He would be a wonderful canidate for president in 2008. As our Wisconsin governor, he is very popular and is almost certain to win re-election in 2006. I agree that in 2008 we need a governor as our canidate, and to get away from the East Coast, a midwest man is just what we need.

[adwon]

8. Maybe

The Democrats who have won the presidency since LBJ have not just been governors, but Southern governors. In fact, the trend since 1976 has been candidates from either the South or California.

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that Senators are not viable candidates. No Southern senators have won a nomination since, by extension, LBJ.

I also don't know if the argument about voting records in regard to a senator's viability is very strong. The case against running governors could be made from the failure of Dukakis. Boston Harbor and Willie Horton seemed to be the resonant images of his tenure as governor. Granted, this is only one case, but then, so is the centerpiece of argument against senators (Kerry).

[kevsand]

9. Since the start of twentieth century,

only two sitting Senators of either party have been elected president: Kennedy and Harding (I think).

The rest, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, were either governors or generals or had some kind of "on the job" training. And Kerry is not the whole argument against senators; we also have Stevenson, Goldwater, McGovern, and Dole off the top of my head. Apparently, even on the job training may not be enough for former senators/congressmen facing governors: witness Ford, Bush I, and Gore.

I suspect you have a point about the southern connection. Dukakis, while a governor, was a northeastern liberal. As you say, the governors who won in the last thirty years were from the south or west (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II).

And as you also pointed out, the losing senators I mentioned were also non-Southerners, although Kansas is arguably a border state. I'd classify it as more midwest than south. And Goldwater, of course, was southwest.

So which is more important: being from the south or west, or having executive experience? I can't say. Let's hedge the bets and get someone who's both...

[adwon]

10. Possibly

My problem with governors as presidents is that, too often, they're just incompetent when it comes to federal governance. States tend to be far more restrictive when it comes to delineating the exact specifications of the job (especially in the South). Plus, the whole outsider image is great for elections, but it means you have very limited contact with Congress, which is the primary enabler/impediment to legislative agendas.

The reason I didn't use all the candidates of the 20th century (btw Adlai was a governor) was LBJ's breaking of the anti-Southern tradition in 64. His reelection changed the electoral pool from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and West.

I guess I just want to see a senator run one day and get challenged by some 'outsider' as being part of the establishment...then hear that senator tear into the governor for not even knowing how to turn on the lights in the White House :P.

[kevsand]

11. That's a very good point.

The most obvious example would be Carter. Very intelligent man, very principled man, but absolutely no idea how to get what he wanted from a Democratic Congress!

To be honest, I'm not sure that much of whatever success one can ascribe to Clinton came from his ability to work the hill. And I still haven't figured out the first Reagan term. Why did they roll over for him? Bush II seems to be more stick than carrot in his approach to Congress, although he actually hardly ever gets involved. "Let someone else do it" seems to be his motto.

The master was clearly LBJ. He knew those boys inside and out; half of them still owed him favors, and the other half knew better than to cross him.

Unfortunately, running and governing are two different things. In the final analysis, public perception of relative strengths or desired qualities in a candidate is what matters on election day. And I still believe that the person is always more important than the resume.

P.S.: About Adlai. You're right. It was his son who was the senator. I knew that. What was I thinking?

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Wasn't there an Adlai Stevenson that ran for VP in 1900

I believe that he was William Jennings Bryan's running mate when he ran against McKinley in 1900. Also, I think that Richard Nixon's first running mate (1960) was named Henry Cabot Lodge, but doubtfully the same Henry Cabot Lodge that lead the opposition ratification of the treaty of Versailles.

[kevsand]

15. You're right about Lodge.

He was Nixon's running mate in 1960, and it wasn't some bizarre Cagliostro moment, it was a relative at Versailles.

As to a Stevenson in 1900, a quick check of bios shows that AES III (the senator and unsuccessful candidate for governor) was the great-grandson of a VP AES I, so you're probably right.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. First of all, your facts are incorrect

Bush the elder ran against Michael Dukakis, a governor, and won. Dukakis ran a disasterous presidential campaign which is living proof that a good governor doesn't make it a sure thing by any means. It is also living proof that governors have a record that follows them around just like senators do.

Also, Carter ran against and beat incumbent president Gerald Ford who had been Nixon's un-elected VP and the House Republican Leader before that.

Here's the GENERAL problem with US Senators. Most of them that want to be president use their career in the US Senate as simply a stepping-stone to the presidency. When it comes to election time they start casting all of their votes in a way that is politically expedient. Kerry is a good example of this. This is why we should be wary of senators, but not all senators. I think that Russ Feingold is still standing strong for what he believes in, even when people are considering him as a potential presidential contender. If he runs in '08, I'm supporting him no matter what Governor runs.

I think that Hillary would be a poor choice even if she were a Governor of New York, because the GOP has been making her a polarizing figure since bill got into office.

BTW to answer your last question, arguably the best Governor in the south WAS Roy Barnes but after the coup of Georgia in 2002 his political career is toast. Warner isn't very progressive and most southern governors tend to be very conservative.

However, god forbid we don't win in 2008, I think that the new Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer would be a great contender for 2012. He is fairly progressive, got the hunting and fishing community support, and unlike Bush who pretends to ride a horse and hang out on a ranch for photo ops, Schweitzer actually does ride a horse. Even though Schweitzer is from a small state, winning Montana, the Dakotas, Colorado, and Nevada could easily be enough to put us over the top.

[ZootSuitGringo]

14. Fuggetaboutit!

If the governor in question has no national security experience, then he's not getting my vote.

I think the General in these odd and fucked up times is a much better proposition.

Thus far, the governors mentioned have not "it" or "Q" factor. Clinton won because of "it".

Remember, 2008 will not be 1992.

The time machine right here, for those who want to go back....

[NativeTexan]

16. BILL RICHARDSON of NEW MEXICO!!!

I believe he is smarter and more politically adept than Warner of Virginia. Plus, he is hispanic, has his roots in a REALLY EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION and isn't a Northeasterner that the South will make hay with. He is big on protecting the borders, but also for fair immigration reform.

AND HE IS A GOVERNOR!! Bring on SENATOR FRIST in this situation!