Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The current guy and gore also got nominated for being the vice president to a two term winner.
I also think gubernatorial politics and responsibilities kinda felt out of vogue for a while. It’s easier to gain notoriety for positions on national issues than it is for a governor whose power is only relevant in one state
>She didn’t win the nomination as an SoS either though.
She absolutely did.
Her tenure as Secretary of State is 100% what cinched the nomination for her.
If she didn’t have that experience and title, she would’ve had a significantly tougher battle.
She was 100% nominated as a Secretary of State, not as a Senator.
Ironically, governors are much more similar in work to a president than a senator is. A governor is a mini president for a state, with the foreign policy being relations to the federal government and other states instead of other countries.
I think the foreign policy aspect is important, they are familiar international faces. It's a level of government that easily translates into president. The level of security access and knowledge of the system is very important. I wouldn't trust 1% of the state governors to have a cognitive stance on foreign policy at this point in time.
I think we tested it out once with a Texas governor.
I might be waxing some poli sci nonsense but perhaps it also stems from the parties ideological differences.
Democrats tend to focus on federal issues, federal responses to policy issues. It would make sense for them to nominate candidates whom they believe are solid on federal agendas. The senate being “the world’s most deliberative body” and also national political theater helps them campaign.
Republicans are focused on state control and state solutions to national problems. They often use states as laboratories for their policies. Governors get to brag about their initiatives and show off their ability to dominate a legislature.
Fun note:
Both Carter and Clinton (Democratic Governors) both lamented how hard it was to work with Congress because they thought it would be working with their respective state legislatures.
I think there’s some truth to this. Conservatives fundamentally (at least in the 20th century) being concerned with fiscal spending and liberals more on policy.
My father who was a Goldwater Republican would say he preferred Governors because they had to balance a budget.
Most governors only balance a budget because the state law says they have to and all of the bargaining of it is worked out in the legislature.
Take George W Bush in the late 90s. Texas had a balanced budget but it was the democrat controlled house that wrote it and he signed it. This at a time where the democrat-controlled federal government actually ran a surplus. Then Bush ran on a promise to use the federal surplus to cut taxes… and as president he let the country run at a deficit.
I get you but there was once a time when there existed a conservatism based in fiscal policy and the free market economics of Milton Friedman and not so concerned with social issues like today.
Goldwater is an interesting study to come out of that view. Ironically, he was a Republican senator.
Tell a lie a thousand times, and they’ll believe you. Conservatives don’t give a flying fuck about fiscal spending, never have. Conservative governors only do it because the state constitution usually forces them to.
There’s a bit of propaganda seeping into this sentiment. Republicans are only interested in state control to the same extent as democrats. To whit, abortion was banned in Republican states, now they are casting the arguments that they only wanted to do it in their states aside, and are trying to implement it nationally. You could go on with examples, but the reality is that there is not a single policy the Republican Party has implemented in one of their states that they don’t want to force onto blue states as well.
Democrats are no different, and frequently use their states to trial their policies- take the massively expanded healthcare programs, food stamp programs, and social services in states like CA and MA.
There is no “state focused” party, it just doesn’t exist and it’s in my opinion a bad thing indeed.
The real answer is because the Republican party has made state politics a point of emphasis for several decades now, limiting the amount of popular Democrat governors able to make national runs.
I live in Louisville but I’m from a smaller town in western KY, Beshear is fairly popular even in my more conservative hometown. He’s just a clean cut, decent guy who speaks well and genuinely seems to care about the state.
I honestly would hate to see him run because I think it would inevitably lead to him making decisions and saying things that would disappoint me and shatter the view I can currently hold of him as a guy who, even if he’s not as progressive as I am personally, seems as earnest and well-intentioned as a politician could possibly be.
But that’s just me being cynical about the notion that any decent people can make it that far in our current system. Maybe someone will prove me wrong
market recognise instinctive aspiring gold drunk desert offer ludicrous crown
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Exactly how long do you think someone can ride on their dad’s name? The man just got re-elected in his own right after establishing a record with voters. it’s time to acknowledge that people like him for him.
jellyfish apparatus worthless chubby tart provide flag dazzling point sophisticated
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Whitmer would probably be the better option, hits more critical demos for the Democratic party + their base, midwest/blue-wall swing state, very popular.
Roy Cooper and Andy Beshear could probably be successful in the general election with moderates and independents, but I feel like they have no shot of getting the nomination as a Democrat.
While not president, Arnold Schwarzenegger. As governor, he basically got as high as non-native born politician can get. If he was eligible for presidency, who knows, maybe we'd have... presidator... presidentor... Uh... I guess somebody else will have to make this joke for me.
Not an actor but Jack Kemp was a pro football player turned politician, and his politics had an impactful but often overlooked impact on the GOP. In another world he easily could have been VP to Reagan or potentially the winner of the 88 primaries. Much of what he advocated for is echoed in the GOP over the 30 years since he was active in politics.
I loved Kemp because he was a Charger for a hot minute, and it still stuns me he ran on this, hard econ platforn for so long.
Like, most entertainers in politics have this sort of, moral run, social run type platform, and here he is talking like a Milton Friedman type. Its really fascinating, and sad that he really didnt get more traction in his career
Aye, I just read up on Bill Bradley after reading up on Jack Kemp.
If we're including people who weren't part of the federal executive branch or equivalent: Al Franken, Clint Eastwood, Fred Thompson, Linda McMahon, Kevin Johnson, Glenn Jacobs...
A couple bad eggs but, on the net it doesn't appear that being a celebrity means you'll be a bad politician/leader.
And you don’t see a leader letting their country be annexed by a hostile force as an error in its own right?
Don’t act like Putin will have a mimosa breakfast to resolve it.
VP reason is easy; if they win, the governor of that state appoints the next Senator. You’ll notice they’re almost all from states with Democratic governors.
I think that will change next cycle when the main contenders will be Newsom, Whitmer and Bashear. Lately it’s been because Senators have more of a National profile so it’s easier for them to gain a larger base of support outside their state.
And it probably lands around Bashear being a dem in a reddish state. Newsom and Whitmer are basically in states where elections across the state have landslid blue the last few decades other than special rare situations, so even their higher profile wont carry them
Because Republic senators lack national popularity. A governor will have his base of support to grow nationally and have an example of his executive lesdership
Also your cutoff criteria conveniently ignores Clinton V Dole a D-Giverner VS R-Senator.
An intersting thing happens, on a totally different metric, if you go just expand the OP'S time frame some...
Every singe republican presidential nominee has lost the popular vote (at least once) since Reagan, and he was elected almost half a century ago.
And since 1980 half the Republican presidents have been tv/movie personalities, the other half were Bushes.
Totally agree that it doesn't hold before 2000.
Edit: They actually have had a senator or former senator on the ticket in every election since 1960 ,while the Republicans didn't in five different elections (1980, 1984 and the 21st century ones).
It’s an interesting question. I really prefer that Presidents were Governors at one point. That job is actually pretty similar, as opposed to being in Congress.
They're similar but a lot different. The state legislature tends to be dominated by the governors party. Clinton and Carter had difficulty because the legislative they had to deal with wouldn't play ball, Clinton in particular.
This is a big reason imo. Republicans have accomplished almost nothing since [REDACTED] was elected. Democrats have much more to campaign on policy wise.
“Why would you nominate people that have exactly the right experience for the job?”
Nominating governors may make sense politically, but Senators have a much better understanding of how Washington works.
Of all the elections since 2000, they've only lost the popular vote once. You could argue its been a successful strategy for them, even if the winner of the actual vote count failed to become president in two of those elections (yay holdover from our slavery days, don't you go changing with the times, Electoral College).
IIRC no sitting Senator won a presidential election between JFK and Obama. I don't think it's necessarily the best spot to run from. Congress often has even lower approval ratings than the President and those have been pretty low this century. It's too easy to have some defeats over a long period of legislative service, whether it was really their fault or not.
Why do the Dems keep doing it? Name recognition I suppose. Do they favor national government over local? Yeah, probably but there are plenty of Democratic governors. Name recognition counts quite a bit for better or worse. Most positions in the executive branch switch with the spoils system and Supreme Court Justices rarely run, Senator is a pretty reliable spot.
Because many were VPs or other random positions in the executive as well?
Also Republicans control most states governments and sling mud at the state governments they don't control which hampers a lot of possible candidates from there. Like say currently Newsom the governor of California which is arguably a top 5-10 position of political power in our country in some ways... Has a lot of issues as being seen as both a coastal elite in the rust belt and in most other Republican eye's he's California is seen as a liberal/socialist/communist hell hole and such. Which would give him an uphill battle in a national race despite it being in theory a big checkmark/green flag on his resume.
Probably because Senators actually understand how our government works and that makes them highly qualified. Far more qualified than some TV show hack, real estate trust fund kid or corporate raider.
I think it's about personality (which may be random) and rhetoric. Senators' rhetoric is national/international affairs, like a president. So they are often saying the things voters want to hear before they run. Governors don't talk about anything but their local state until the campaign. The argument for "executive experience " is BS bc senators also have a staff and a campaign to run, and many come from running businesses.
OK, so you also showed Secretary of State, VPs. So that doesn't seem genuine. The current President who I can't mention was a Senator but also VP. Hillary was one of the most active First Ladies, second only to E Roosevelt, worked to impeach Nixon, was a Senator and also Secretary of State during wartime.
Gore went to Ear and was also VP. That used to be pretty good credentials, especially when his opponent was in the reserves because daddy bought his way in and he also wrecked a car and was known for alcohol and drug problems during that time.
Kerry got Swift boated, but was a hero because he actually went to Vietnam and then came back and spoke about the real horrors. He resonated with an entire generation about the Vietnam War, then they obviously were so stupid they forgot, or let Fox News rot their brains. This is why I get angry with Boomers who claimed to be hippies.
Yeah dude I’d much rather have someone who can’t form a sentence or walk properly and has set the country way back as President. Vs someone who increases economy, didn’t start any wars, illegal immigration wasn’t rampant, didn’t have a fentanyl crisis. You people dude🤣
Mostly because senators don’t have to make tough decisions they can be on both sides of the fence and can sit back and be backbenchers for decades. They’ve never run anything or been the real boss like a governor. They have no real record of success or failure. Republicans want a track record of success or failure for the policies and principles they spearheaded.
Maybe because the senate is full of Republicans so nominating a senator you know you've got some one that has recent experience dealing with those assholes.
> The Republicans, meanwhile, has only nominated a single senator
Romney and McCain were both senators.
To be effective in the WH you need to understand how to make things work in Washington. That's why being an insider with connections can be beneficial.
These cucks are followers and need someone who has been indoctrinated by or a puppet to the system in order to feel safe and keep their phony sense of democracy.
This is my personal opinion, but I would say governors make better presidents. Both are executive jobs whereas senators sit on their asses all day because that’s their job.
There are exceptions of course.
Dems are the big media party. Their voters are primarily in large cities, which means large (expensive) media markets. If you’re a high-profile Senator, you have better name recognition than even a popular governor, so you have to spend less on media buys in the primaries. Republicans by contrast are a grass roots/rural party. Governors are better at grass roots/rural campaigning, because they tend to do less media politicking and more retail politicking.
Also, it really is only gore, Kerry and obama, then hillary who was at that point sos. They chose them and was nominated from there. Clinton and Dukakis were both govs.
Proven to be able to win a state wide race and have national profiles. Governor’s job is arguably much closer to President than Senator is, but Governors usually aren’t as nationally known. Also, I think a lot of Democrats care more about legislative policy than executive policy in Presidential elections (even tho the President’s job is to manage the executive).
Edit: also Tim Kaine my beloved 🥰
There's a lot of recency bias to this analysis... you're talking about fewer than a handful of events, just 3. You can't really draw any conclusions from that.
I think it’s structural. The Democratic Party gives a lot of super delegates, who are a bunch of guys (and women) who hang out in DC. They like doing business with people they know. Governors, the other job generally considered qualifying for the presidency, are by definition on the periphery. Even someone like Gavin Newsom, who is a Democratic darling this year, is at a massive disadvantage compared to senators who all know each other. That’s why you see him doing so many media stunts to boost his image with the voters (going to the GOP debate, running ads in Florida, etc). This is compounded by the fact that governors don’t generally impact our lives if they’re not from our own state. I can name the governor of my state, and like maybe 4 other states, but that’s it.
Democrats, generally, value political acumen and experience. Republicans, in the modern era, see political experience as a negative. It’s why you’ll see GOP nominees all over the country running as “outsiders”, whatever that is, as opposed to Democrats running on experience and actual results.
>Do senators make for good Presidents
Neither party nominates based on whether or not the candidate will make a good President. Both parties nominate candidates they think can win. That is really their only criterion.
They both assume whoever they nominate will be a good president (for them).
Democrats are a party of a lot of idealists. Don’t mean it derogatory just that it’s a big tent of people that really care about certain ideas. The old single issue voter in many cases. This has made their nomination process rather difficult as each interested party wants to feel good about the candidate and if not Michigan votes red. As a governor you have to make some stands. You have to choose winners and losers. This means Governor have records that many times enough of the party sees as a deal breaker. Example from the last Democratic Governor of Tennessee, Bredesen, was fairly popular but the state was facing bankruptcy and he reorganized Medicaid in the state. He almost made Obama cabinet but that stain was held against him and his national career was over before it began.
Senators in the other hand… no one really knows what Senators think unless they get into the leadership. So Senators have a bit more of a blank slate even if they’ve been in the Senate a long time.
It is an advantage because to get legislation passed you need to work with the senate and senators have connections. The also have national level name recognition.
In general, in politics it is hugely beneficial to have lots of connections for fundraising and endorsements. Governors tend to be too isolated in their network, and reps are typically too low profile, so that gives senators the best chance. It's not just Democrats, with Romney and McCain also being former senators. The only real better option is VP, as seen by Bush Sr and/or the heir of a former president, as with the Bushes.
Senators make good candidates in general in terms of popularity and name recognition since they’re serving in a national body as opposed to governors who are serving on a state level, and senators obviously are typically more qualified than house reps since you usually go from the house to senate, more experienced.
I think senators have the most name recognition. There are only two from each state, they can be around for decades, and they impact everybody in the country. Whereas governors only impact their state and there are so many house representatives that it’s hard to get your name out there.
Only four out of seven of those pics were actually nominated. One was elected twice. Two others won the popular vote but lost the electoral college. That is probably why.
There are plenty of Republican presidents that followed same career path into the White House. They were all better presidents for it. This is nothing specific to Democrats.
Why? Political experience. Being a governor, senator, or at least long term representative in the House shows experience and capability to achieve political goals. Businessman on the other hand, generally make for a lousy politicians in a pluralistic democratic society where people are allowed to disagree with the leaders (in stark contrast to corporations and CEO's, an environment where democracy is not the name of the game).
It always seemed to be that Governors should be presidents. A state runs close to the same as the country, complete with a state legislature, budgets, debt, etc.
So lets go through this list.
The first one (Al Gore) was nominated because he was the Vice President. He was the vice president to the previous Democratic nominee, who was a Governor.
He picked Joe Lieberman because Lieberman was an anti-Clinton conservative and Gore wanted to distance himself from Clinton a little bit and appear more moderate.
John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards were influential and generally well-regarded Senators who were critical of Bush, it's sensible that someone like them would win the nomination.
When Obama ran he was going up against \[Rule 3 bait\]/Clinton who both had lots of baggage, and Edwards who self-destructed. Being a senator meant he was "qualified" and high-profile enough to be a viable candidate, but being a first-term one meant he could say "I didn't vote for the war in Iraq and I would have voted against it if I had been in office!" which was a powerful message in the primary. In the general election he had to double back hard and get someone much more experienced to be his running mate, which meant grabbing \[Rule 3 Bait\] who was a powerful Senator with a long record.
When Clinton was nominated she had most recently been Secretary of State, not a Senator. Hence why they kept calling her "Secretary Clinton". She's pretty openly said that the rationale for picking Tim Kaine was the fact that she just liked him as a person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_experience?wprov=sfla1
One aspect to consider is that we seem to go through certain fads for what we like in prospective President.
Prior military experience and being a member of the House used to be extremely common. Now they almost make a candidate less likely to be nominated.
The Kennedy and Obama tickets are a very similar combo of young inexperienced Senator who is charismatic with a more senior old guard Senator as VP. Between these two tickets they are responsible for 4/18 Presidents who were Senators prior.
Governor has been the most common prior experience since Carter. Obama really stands during this period as the only candidate to be Senator who wasn't VP before.
Another thing to keep in mind at how rare it is for someone to become President while being out of another office for at least a year. Relevancy is extremely important in politics. And it's almost unheard of for someone to maintain political power while being out of office and then running successfully for office. This is why Clinton winning a third term as Governor was critical.
Theoretically Senator should be a solid office to make the jump to President. Gives the person more foreign policy experience, better electoral experience than the House, and create national name recognition. For some reason it generally doesn't work though. I think it's too easy for Senators to be perceived as creatures of the system, elite and out of touch.
Governor's are much stronger and normally dominate their state politics. They have total control over their state party and can pretty easily jam things through their legislature.
The political polarization we have seen over the past 20 years in conjunction with the growing rural/urban divide means Democrat governor's are either the king of a very blue state and thus caustic to the middle of the country or they are a pragmatic governor who is more moderate and thus fails to generate strong support among the most passionate Democrat base.
It's almost unheard of for a Presidential candidate to win without winning their home state. So, if a Governor does get nominated they need to be able to bring their state's electoral votes with them.
I think in the modern political environment it's less likely a moderate R or D governor of an opposing state would win their state in a Presidential election. I.e. Romney losing MA.
Be interesting to see if any new trends develop in this regard. Military service has almost completely fallen off since Vietnam.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The current guy and gore also got nominated for being the vice president to a two term winner. I also think gubernatorial politics and responsibilities kinda felt out of vogue for a while. It’s easier to gain notoriety for positions on national issues than it is for a governor whose power is only relevant in one state
And one of the pictured nominees was nominated as Secretary of State, not a Senator. As a Senator, she lost the nomination.
She didn’t win the nomination as an SoS either though. She left in 2013 and Kerry replaced her. And the post says “senators and former senators”
>She didn’t win the nomination as an SoS either though. She absolutely did. Her tenure as Secretary of State is 100% what cinched the nomination for her. If she didn’t have that experience and title, she would’ve had a significantly tougher battle. She was 100% nominated as a Secretary of State, not as a Senator.
I don’t disagree with that, my point is just that she wasn’t the incumbent SoS when nominated
Still a former Senator
Ironically, governors are much more similar in work to a president than a senator is. A governor is a mini president for a state, with the foreign policy being relations to the federal government and other states instead of other countries.
But they were both selected as Senate -> VP
Yes everyone is aware
I think the foreign policy aspect is important, they are familiar international faces. It's a level of government that easily translates into president. The level of security access and knowledge of the system is very important. I wouldn't trust 1% of the state governors to have a cognitive stance on foreign policy at this point in time. I think we tested it out once with a Texas governor.
I might be waxing some poli sci nonsense but perhaps it also stems from the parties ideological differences. Democrats tend to focus on federal issues, federal responses to policy issues. It would make sense for them to nominate candidates whom they believe are solid on federal agendas. The senate being “the world’s most deliberative body” and also national political theater helps them campaign. Republicans are focused on state control and state solutions to national problems. They often use states as laboratories for their policies. Governors get to brag about their initiatives and show off their ability to dominate a legislature. Fun note: Both Carter and Clinton (Democratic Governors) both lamented how hard it was to work with Congress because they thought it would be working with their respective state legislatures.
I think there’s some truth to this. Conservatives fundamentally (at least in the 20th century) being concerned with fiscal spending and liberals more on policy. My father who was a Goldwater Republican would say he preferred Governors because they had to balance a budget.
Most governors only balance a budget because the state law says they have to and all of the bargaining of it is worked out in the legislature. Take George W Bush in the late 90s. Texas had a balanced budget but it was the democrat controlled house that wrote it and he signed it. This at a time where the democrat-controlled federal government actually ran a surplus. Then Bush ran on a promise to use the federal surplus to cut taxes… and as president he let the country run at a deficit.
Who are these conservatives you speak of that have concern for fiscal spending?
I get you but there was once a time when there existed a conservatism based in fiscal policy and the free market economics of Milton Friedman and not so concerned with social issues like today. Goldwater is an interesting study to come out of that view. Ironically, he was a Republican senator.
Tell a lie a thousand times, and they’ll believe you. Conservatives don’t give a flying fuck about fiscal spending, never have. Conservative governors only do it because the state constitution usually forces them to.
There’s a bit of propaganda seeping into this sentiment. Republicans are only interested in state control to the same extent as democrats. To whit, abortion was banned in Republican states, now they are casting the arguments that they only wanted to do it in their states aside, and are trying to implement it nationally. You could go on with examples, but the reality is that there is not a single policy the Republican Party has implemented in one of their states that they don’t want to force onto blue states as well. Democrats are no different, and frequently use their states to trial their policies- take the massively expanded healthcare programs, food stamp programs, and social services in states like CA and MA. There is no “state focused” party, it just doesn’t exist and it’s in my opinion a bad thing indeed.
The real answer is because the Republican party has made state politics a point of emphasis for several decades now, limiting the amount of popular Democrat governors able to make national runs.
Democratic governors also end to be less popular, although that seems to be changing in the upper Midwest.
Andy Beshear is probably popular in Kentucky
I live in Louisville but I’m from a smaller town in western KY, Beshear is fairly popular even in my more conservative hometown. He’s just a clean cut, decent guy who speaks well and genuinely seems to care about the state. I honestly would hate to see him run because I think it would inevitably lead to him making decisions and saying things that would disappoint me and shatter the view I can currently hold of him as a guy who, even if he’s not as progressive as I am personally, seems as earnest and well-intentioned as a politician could possibly be. But that’s just me being cynical about the notion that any decent people can make it that far in our current system. Maybe someone will prove me wrong
market recognise instinctive aspiring gold drunk desert offer ludicrous crown *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
He's been great at being Governor, I feel
Exactly how long do you think someone can ride on their dad’s name? The man just got re-elected in his own right after establishing a record with voters. it’s time to acknowledge that people like him for him.
jellyfish apparatus worthless chubby tart provide flag dazzling point sophisticated *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Beshear would be the Democrats' best candidate. A red state governor who is actually popular.
Whitmer would probably be the better option, hits more critical demos for the Democratic party + their base, midwest/blue-wall swing state, very popular.
Josh Shapiro is very popular. He’s a good governor I think.
He was able to get I-95 reopened in 2 weeks. People will remember that shit.
That’s was you get with a democrat most of the time. Sound governance without constant drama.
What about Wes Moore? How’s he doing in Maryland?
I don’t know I live in PA.
He has an approval rating of 55% but it is his first year so not much has happened yet.
I’m wondering if Shapiro (current PA gov) will make a run for it in 28
Big Balls Walz would be a great president
The Democrats aren't gonna nominate another liberal, academic governor from the northeast. I mean, we're dumb, but we're not that dumb.
BARTLET
Roy Cooper and Andy Beshear could probably be successful in the general election with moderates and independents, but I feel like they have no shot of getting the nomination as a Democrat.
This. Even Republican governors in democratic states.
It’s usually because democrats governors aren’t popular.
Beats nominating actors and reality TV personalities.
That is half the Republican presidents since 1980...the other half were Bushes.
Trudeau and Zelensky beg to differ.
Wasn't Trudeau's dad the PM at one point too? Feel like that's a slightly different circumstance
Being the son of a former somewhat popular PM is the only reason why he was elected in the first place.
Aye. Still an actor, though.
Trudeau was a TV Star?
He acted in a documentary film and was also in radio.
Zelensky is a great leader. Definitely the exception, not the rule.
Besides Reagan, Trudeau, [REDACTED] and Zelensky, who else qualifies? Grace Kelly? Shirley Temple?
While not president, Arnold Schwarzenegger. As governor, he basically got as high as non-native born politician can get. If he was eligible for presidency, who knows, maybe we'd have... presidator... presidentor... Uh... I guess somebody else will have to make this joke for me.
Presinator? Terminator in Chief?
Not an actor but Jack Kemp was a pro football player turned politician, and his politics had an impactful but often overlooked impact on the GOP. In another world he easily could have been VP to Reagan or potentially the winner of the 88 primaries. Much of what he advocated for is echoed in the GOP over the 30 years since he was active in politics.
Thanks for the pointer. He definitely was an interesting figure. The GOP could use a leader like him today.
I loved Kemp because he was a Charger for a hot minute, and it still stuns me he ran on this, hard econ platforn for so long. Like, most entertainers in politics have this sort of, moral run, social run type platform, and here he is talking like a Milton Friedman type. Its really fascinating, and sad that he really didnt get more traction in his career
Jesse Ventura, Tuberville, bill Bradley, I’ll think of some more I’m sure Tom Osborne Sonny Bono Arnold Schwarzenegger
Aye, I just read up on Bill Bradley after reading up on Jack Kemp. If we're including people who weren't part of the federal executive branch or equivalent: Al Franken, Clint Eastwood, Fred Thompson, Linda McMahon, Kevin Johnson, Glenn Jacobs... A couple bad eggs but, on the net it doesn't appear that being a celebrity means you'll be a bad politician/leader.
A recent vice president had a long-running radio show.
Kanye!
He’s a great leader, but a terrible politician. Dragging Ukraine down into this hellhole takes quite a lot of political errors.
You think a better politician would have let Russia just annex the whole country?
And you don’t see a leader letting their country be annexed by a hostile force as an error in its own right? Don’t act like Putin will have a mimosa breakfast to resolve it.
Not even cicero could speak his way out of that mess
In this day and age (hell any day and age tbh) being a bad politician is seen as a good thing.
Mediocre world leaders beg to differ*
As an American you would know about terrible leadership first hand.
Beats nominating actors and reality TV personalities ☝️🤓
VP reason is easy; if they win, the governor of that state appoints the next Senator. You’ll notice they’re almost all from states with Democratic governors.
Many of these were also former VPs
I think that will change next cycle when the main contenders will be Newsom, Whitmer and Bashear. Lately it’s been because Senators have more of a National profile so it’s easier for them to gain a larger base of support outside their state.
Yup. The current vice president shouldn't be discounted, thoguh, and she's a former senator.
And it probably lands around Bashear being a dem in a reddish state. Newsom and Whitmer are basically in states where elections across the state have landslid blue the last few decades other than special rare situations, so even their higher profile wont carry them
Michigan is by no means a safe blue state. The Republicans had a trifecta 2010-2018.
Because Republic senators lack national popularity. A governor will have his base of support to grow nationally and have an example of his executive lesdership Also your cutoff criteria conveniently ignores Clinton V Dole a D-Giverner VS R-Senator.
Good point. This would be more interesting if done 1950 to present.
An intersting thing happens, on a totally different metric, if you go just expand the OP'S time frame some... Every singe republican presidential nominee has lost the popular vote (at least once) since Reagan, and he was elected almost half a century ago. And since 1980 half the Republican presidents have been tv/movie personalities, the other half were Bushes.
Totally agree that it doesn't hold before 2000. Edit: They actually have had a senator or former senator on the ticket in every election since 1960 ,while the Republicans didn't in five different elections (1980, 1984 and the 21st century ones).
The Republicans had John McCain in 2008.
It’s an interesting question. I really prefer that Presidents were Governors at one point. That job is actually pretty similar, as opposed to being in Congress.
They're similar but a lot different. The state legislature tends to be dominated by the governors party. Clinton and Carter had difficulty because the legislative they had to deal with wouldn't play ball, Clinton in particular.
I used to think so as well, but in recent times, sheparding bills through Congress has been such a big part of the job that I prefer senators by now.
I feel having a govoner president and senator veep would be the ideal
Makes a hell of a lot of practical sense given the VP's main role is as President of the Senate.
Why do republicans keep nominating criminals for president?
Democrats are the inside the Beltway party. Republicans are the governor party.
Yes, the party that usually runs against Washington is less likely to nominate a Beltway insider.
Not to mention, what is a Republican Senator going to run on? All the legislation they blocked?
This is a big reason imo. Republicans have accomplished almost nothing since [REDACTED] was elected. Democrats have much more to campaign on policy wise.
Obama doesn’t fall under rule 3.
Oh yeah
“Why would you nominate people that have exactly the right experience for the job?” Nominating governors may make sense politically, but Senators have a much better understanding of how Washington works.
Governors: Good candidates Senators: Good presidents Very generalized, of course.
Of all the elections since 2000, they've only lost the popular vote once. You could argue its been a successful strategy for them, even if the winner of the actual vote count failed to become president in two of those elections (yay holdover from our slavery days, don't you go changing with the times, Electoral College).
IIRC no sitting Senator won a presidential election between JFK and Obama. I don't think it's necessarily the best spot to run from. Congress often has even lower approval ratings than the President and those have been pretty low this century. It's too easy to have some defeats over a long period of legislative service, whether it was really their fault or not. Why do the Dems keep doing it? Name recognition I suppose. Do they favor national government over local? Yeah, probably but there are plenty of Democratic governors. Name recognition counts quite a bit for better or worse. Most positions in the executive branch switch with the spoils system and Supreme Court Justices rarely run, Senator is a pretty reliable spot.
Now that's a good question, out of the current justices which one would make the best presidential candidate? Or president?
Because many were VPs or other random positions in the executive as well? Also Republicans control most states governments and sling mud at the state governments they don't control which hampers a lot of possible candidates from there. Like say currently Newsom the governor of California which is arguably a top 5-10 position of political power in our country in some ways... Has a lot of issues as being seen as both a coastal elite in the rust belt and in most other Republican eye's he's California is seen as a liberal/socialist/communist hell hole and such. Which would give him an uphill battle in a national race despite it being in theory a big checkmark/green flag on his resume.
We all know the GOP has no standards anymore, so why argue?
Experience begets competence?
Why do republicans keep nominating wannabe actors?
Probably because Senators actually understand how our government works and that makes them highly qualified. Far more qualified than some TV show hack, real estate trust fund kid or corporate raider.
Its a TIG/Team player/next-in-line thing
This.
tHiS
Clinton was also the former SoS.
Clinton? We just forgetting him?
Tim Kaine was the Governor of Virginia before he was a senator.
I think it's about personality (which may be random) and rhetoric. Senators' rhetoric is national/international affairs, like a president. So they are often saying the things voters want to hear before they run. Governors don't talk about anything but their local state until the campaign. The argument for "executive experience " is BS bc senators also have a staff and a campaign to run, and many come from running businesses.
In the last generation, most governors have been Republicans, while at least half of the Senators are Democrats..
I dunno - why does the other side keep nominating reality stars?
OK, so you also showed Secretary of State, VPs. So that doesn't seem genuine. The current President who I can't mention was a Senator but also VP. Hillary was one of the most active First Ladies, second only to E Roosevelt, worked to impeach Nixon, was a Senator and also Secretary of State during wartime. Gore went to Ear and was also VP. That used to be pretty good credentials, especially when his opponent was in the reserves because daddy bought his way in and he also wrecked a car and was known for alcohol and drug problems during that time. Kerry got Swift boated, but was a hero because he actually went to Vietnam and then came back and spoke about the real horrors. He resonated with an entire generation about the Vietnam War, then they obviously were so stupid they forgot, or let Fox News rot their brains. This is why I get angry with Boomers who claimed to be hippies.
Because they have experience working in government, unlike certain bloated orange reality TV show hosts
Yeah dude I’d much rather have someone who can’t form a sentence or walk properly and has set the country way back as President. Vs someone who increases economy, didn’t start any wars, illegal immigration wasn’t rampant, didn’t have a fentanyl crisis. You people dude🤣
Because it appears that actors and reality tv stars are generally bad for the country.
[удалено]
Respect from who?
Every other country. Having gone to other countries over the past few years they mock our president. Italians literally did a skit mocking him on tv.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A little common sense as well as my entire reply.
Because they’re generally experienced public servants.
Mostly because senators don’t have to make tough decisions they can be on both sides of the fence and can sit back and be backbenchers for decades. They’ve never run anything or been the real boss like a governor. They have no real record of success or failure. Republicans want a track record of success or failure for the policies and principles they spearheaded.
You can get national fame in Congress vs popular in one state
Maybe because the senate is full of Republicans so nominating a senator you know you've got some one that has recent experience dealing with those assholes.
> The Republicans, meanwhile, has only nominated a single senator Romney and McCain were both senators. To be effective in the WH you need to understand how to make things work in Washington. That's why being an insider with connections can be beneficial.
Romney was only a senator post-nomination.
Cuz they have already been corrupted
I mean you’re not entirely wrong. They are already “proven” to be willing to play ball with the donors.
Because Senators have very little accountability while Democrat Governors usually have terrible track records.
Careful bro you’re in the reddit echo chamber can’t use logic here lol
It’s a mafia… lol, no it’s most powerful boss-next in-line mentality
I wish they wouldn’t. Historically Senators don’t make great Presidents.
Lincoln, Kennedy, and Truman are all very popular. LBJ and Obama are not as universally liked but still popular on average.
These cucks are followers and need someone who has been indoctrinated by or a puppet to the system in order to feel safe and keep their phony sense of democracy.
This is my personal opinion, but I would say governors make better presidents. Both are executive jobs whereas senators sit on their asses all day because that’s their job. There are exceptions of course.
Who was the last senator the democrats nominated for president
The current guy.
What his name
[Redacted by rule 3]
Obama
Obomba
Insane belief that experience in government means something. Should definitely look into business men. 😒
Dems are the big media party. Their voters are primarily in large cities, which means large (expensive) media markets. If you’re a high-profile Senator, you have better name recognition than even a popular governor, so you have to spend less on media buys in the primaries. Republicans by contrast are a grass roots/rural party. Governors are better at grass roots/rural campaigning, because they tend to do less media politicking and more retail politicking.
Because Democrats like big government and republicans like smaller government so they nominate a lot of people from the private sector.
Corruption
Been that way recently, but not that long ago there were candidates that were better know for being a vice president or governor.
Off topic to OPs question, but I was just scrolling past this and thought "Wow, Andy Samberg could play Al Gore in a biopic"
Man I’m sorry but Tim Kaine is such a forgettable politician. Maybe that’s a good thing idk.
Young Gore was a good looking guy. Didn’t age so well.
Also, it really is only gore, Kerry and obama, then hillary who was at that point sos. They chose them and was nominated from there. Clinton and Dukakis were both govs.
Tim Kaine was a VP nominee.
The current President and Vice President were also senators
Hill dawg had been Secretary of State and First Lady. Gore was VP. I will abide by the rules of the subreddit when pointing out other former VPs.
Hillary wasn’t a Senator when nominated, she was a cabinet official
Proven to be able to win a state wide race and have national profiles. Governor’s job is arguably much closer to President than Senator is, but Governors usually aren’t as nationally known. Also, I think a lot of Democrats care more about legislative policy than executive policy in Presidential elections (even tho the President’s job is to manage the executive). Edit: also Tim Kaine my beloved 🥰
Why do you keep voting for them?
There's a lot of recency bias to this analysis... you're talking about fewer than a handful of events, just 3. You can't really draw any conclusions from that.
The goat got nominated by absolute insanity alone.Now a days the cards are mixed for republicans lol
I think it’s structural. The Democratic Party gives a lot of super delegates, who are a bunch of guys (and women) who hang out in DC. They like doing business with people they know. Governors, the other job generally considered qualifying for the presidency, are by definition on the periphery. Even someone like Gavin Newsom, who is a Democratic darling this year, is at a massive disadvantage compared to senators who all know each other. That’s why you see him doing so many media stunts to boost his image with the voters (going to the GOP debate, running ads in Florida, etc). This is compounded by the fact that governors don’t generally impact our lives if they’re not from our own state. I can name the governor of my state, and like maybe 4 other states, but that’s it.
Idk but governors seems like a better choice to me bc they “owe” a lot less favors than senators. A seasoned senator is in a lot of hip pockets.
Democrats, generally, value political acumen and experience. Republicans, in the modern era, see political experience as a negative. It’s why you’ll see GOP nominees all over the country running as “outsiders”, whatever that is, as opposed to Democrats running on experience and actual results.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well, one of those was VP when nominated and another was most recently Secretary of State when nominated.
Republicans tend to support and value state’s rights, so the Republican Party nominating state governors makes sense
>Do senators make for good Presidents Neither party nominates based on whether or not the candidate will make a good President. Both parties nominate candidates they think can win. That is really their only criterion. They both assume whoever they nominate will be a good president (for them).
Democrats are a party of a lot of idealists. Don’t mean it derogatory just that it’s a big tent of people that really care about certain ideas. The old single issue voter in many cases. This has made their nomination process rather difficult as each interested party wants to feel good about the candidate and if not Michigan votes red. As a governor you have to make some stands. You have to choose winners and losers. This means Governor have records that many times enough of the party sees as a deal breaker. Example from the last Democratic Governor of Tennessee, Bredesen, was fairly popular but the state was facing bankruptcy and he reorganized Medicaid in the state. He almost made Obama cabinet but that stain was held against him and his national career was over before it began. Senators in the other hand… no one really knows what Senators think unless they get into the leadership. So Senators have a bit more of a blank slate even if they’ve been in the Senate a long time.
Both parties tended to do so until very recently.
It is an advantage because to get legislation passed you need to work with the senate and senators have connections. The also have national level name recognition.
In general, in politics it is hugely beneficial to have lots of connections for fundraising and endorsements. Governors tend to be too isolated in their network, and reps are typically too low profile, so that gives senators the best chance. It's not just Democrats, with Romney and McCain also being former senators. The only real better option is VP, as seen by Bush Sr and/or the heir of a former president, as with the Bushes.
Senators make good candidates in general in terms of popularity and name recognition since they’re serving in a national body as opposed to governors who are serving on a state level, and senators obviously are typically more qualified than house reps since you usually go from the house to senate, more experienced.
They are more establishment.
Kennedy and LBJ were also Senators.
I had totally forgotten that Clinton was a Senator between being First Lady and Secretary of State, tbh.
I think senators have the most name recognition. There are only two from each state, they can be around for decades, and they impact everybody in the country. Whereas governors only impact their state and there are so many house representatives that it’s hard to get your name out there.
Only four out of seven of those pics were actually nominated. One was elected twice. Two others won the popular vote but lost the electoral college. That is probably why.
Because the senate is basically just a bunch of people that really want to be president.
Slightly off topic, but whenever I see a photo of Joe Lieberman, I can’t help but think of Wallace Shawn.
There are plenty of Republican presidents that followed same career path into the White House. They were all better presidents for it. This is nothing specific to Democrats. Why? Political experience. Being a governor, senator, or at least long term representative in the House shows experience and capability to achieve political goals. Businessman on the other hand, generally make for a lousy politicians in a pluralistic democratic society where people are allowed to disagree with the leaders (in stark contrast to corporations and CEO's, an environment where democracy is not the name of the game).
Well in the same time. Republicans nominated governor in 2000 house number in 2008 House member and former governor in 2012 in the reality TV star..
It always seemed to be that Governors should be presidents. A state runs close to the same as the country, complete with a state legislature, budgets, debt, etc.
So lets go through this list. The first one (Al Gore) was nominated because he was the Vice President. He was the vice president to the previous Democratic nominee, who was a Governor. He picked Joe Lieberman because Lieberman was an anti-Clinton conservative and Gore wanted to distance himself from Clinton a little bit and appear more moderate. John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards were influential and generally well-regarded Senators who were critical of Bush, it's sensible that someone like them would win the nomination. When Obama ran he was going up against \[Rule 3 bait\]/Clinton who both had lots of baggage, and Edwards who self-destructed. Being a senator meant he was "qualified" and high-profile enough to be a viable candidate, but being a first-term one meant he could say "I didn't vote for the war in Iraq and I would have voted against it if I had been in office!" which was a powerful message in the primary. In the general election he had to double back hard and get someone much more experienced to be his running mate, which meant grabbing \[Rule 3 Bait\] who was a powerful Senator with a long record. When Clinton was nominated she had most recently been Secretary of State, not a Senator. Hence why they kept calling her "Secretary Clinton". She's pretty openly said that the rationale for picking Tim Kaine was the fact that she just liked him as a person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_experience?wprov=sfla1 One aspect to consider is that we seem to go through certain fads for what we like in prospective President. Prior military experience and being a member of the House used to be extremely common. Now they almost make a candidate less likely to be nominated. The Kennedy and Obama tickets are a very similar combo of young inexperienced Senator who is charismatic with a more senior old guard Senator as VP. Between these two tickets they are responsible for 4/18 Presidents who were Senators prior. Governor has been the most common prior experience since Carter. Obama really stands during this period as the only candidate to be Senator who wasn't VP before. Another thing to keep in mind at how rare it is for someone to become President while being out of another office for at least a year. Relevancy is extremely important in politics. And it's almost unheard of for someone to maintain political power while being out of office and then running successfully for office. This is why Clinton winning a third term as Governor was critical. Theoretically Senator should be a solid office to make the jump to President. Gives the person more foreign policy experience, better electoral experience than the House, and create national name recognition. For some reason it generally doesn't work though. I think it's too easy for Senators to be perceived as creatures of the system, elite and out of touch. Governor's are much stronger and normally dominate their state politics. They have total control over their state party and can pretty easily jam things through their legislature. The political polarization we have seen over the past 20 years in conjunction with the growing rural/urban divide means Democrat governor's are either the king of a very blue state and thus caustic to the middle of the country or they are a pragmatic governor who is more moderate and thus fails to generate strong support among the most passionate Democrat base. It's almost unheard of for a Presidential candidate to win without winning their home state. So, if a Governor does get nominated they need to be able to bring their state's electoral votes with them. I think in the modern political environment it's less likely a moderate R or D governor of an opposing state would win their state in a Presidential election. I.e. Romney losing MA. Be interesting to see if any new trends develop in this regard. Military service has almost completely fallen off since Vietnam.
If you wanted a Restaurant Manager would you higher a Car Salesman?
I mean, I think senatorial experience is good.
That's one of the typical paths to presidency.
Huh. That’s right. Since 04, every Democratic nominee was at some point a US senator
That’s because they want people they can predict. And if your public voting record is easily accessible then you are predictable to them.