Recent History is against Feingold. Why do Americans dislike Senators?

[rpannier]

We've gotten several posts from people who want Feingold to run. My concern is that the electorate seems to hate US Senators and love Governors. The last man to get elected President straight from the Senate was Kennedy. (Johnson was VP-Pres from 60-64). In fact, only fifteen Presidents have ever served in the Senate (the last being Nixon) and none of those elected in the 20th century served two full terms. While 19 have been governor and of the ones that served in the 20th Century, only Carter didn't get re-elected.
Why do Americans seem so reluctant to vote for Senators?

For the record:
The only sitting Presidents to lose in the 20th Century all lost to governors: reagan-Carter, Roosevelt-hoover, Wilson-taft.
If I made an error please note thanks.

[serryjw]

1. Really bad idea

One of the main reasons I was against Kerry was exactly that. There is TO MUCH PROVEN history to be attacked on..not true for a Governor. I would never support another Senator for Dems nominee...

[Telly Savalas]

21. Willie Horton

[ISUGRADIA]

2. Senators vote on hundreds of bills and amendments

which are all foder for misrepresentation and distortion. Governors make policy but do not vote and do not have to take stands on many issues unless a bill is brought before them. I also think Governors stand out as "leaders" with veto and other powers while Senators, even in leadership positions, are only one vote of 100.

I think you can add the other sitting presidents to lose Carter-Ford and Clinton-Bush to your list which reinforces your point, they too lost to governors.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Here's where your theory fails...

One, Senators RARELY become nominees. The only in recent history are McGovern, Dole, and Kerry. Vice Presidents and Governors have had more shots to win and loose.

Second, most Senators make bad presidential candidates because most of them want to be president. They spend several years trying to make themselves appear "presidential" and Kerry is a PERFECT example of this. Russ, however, is not an example of this. His voting record is just the same as it was when he took office in 1993. He continues to take principled stances on issues and also isn't a media whore who tries to grab the spotlight every chance that he gets.

Russ is a Senator, but he's a FIGHTING Senator, not an entrenched politician.

Now... Your theory would work very well with some Senators who may be seeking the presidency, Evan Bayh for example.

[txaslftist]

24. Senators tend to be vulnerable on their voting records.

As legislators, they have to make compromises and sometimes hold their noses as they vote...

This is later used against them when they run for higher office.

[sandnsea]

4. Seems distorted to me

Reagan and Carter were both governors, so what. Hoover was never a senator and it had nothing to do with him losing, duh. Wilson served 2 terms. Harding was a Senator against the Governor, Cox. Eisenhower and Stevenson, not senators, in fact Stevenson was Governor of Illinois when he ran. I think this whole governor/senator thing is a myth.

The real bottom line is Americans want somebody to appeal to their egos. Democrats tend not to do that, that's probably why we lose until things get so shitty people decide to throw the bums out again. And then promptly forget why they did it in the first place.

[rpannier]

14. 3 of the last 4 Presidents were governors.

And all three beat sitting Presidents. The point I'm making is the Public tends to trust governors more than Senators.

[sandnsea]

26. I just disagree with it

Reagan, Carter and Clinton all ran against sitting Presidents that the people wanted to throw out. Clinton wouldn't have won without Perot, I don't care what anybody says. Bush didn't win in 2000. I think it's a false premise, I disagree.

[w4rma]

5. I think Feingold is awesome. I would support him.

If he does run, we'll find out during the primary how his Senate record holds up so I'm not worried about that.

Note that Feingold is the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act.

[housewolf]

6. History against Senators

In the entire history of the U.S., only 2 men have ever been elected to the presidency directly from the senate. A few others have served in the senate then moved to other positions (such as V.P.) and then elected to the presidency.

The senate is a murky place. It's the epitome of down-and-dirty politics of deal-making and compromise. Very little is clear-cut in the senate. Votes are traded regularly. Influence and access is bought and traded. All the slimy, nasty, dirty, disgusting things we all hate about politics is what goes on in the senate on a daily basis.

All that said, votes in the senate are almost never clear-cut issues. Legislation is written in complex ways and non-germane ammendments are added to bills such that if a senator votes for a piece of legislation that is intended to, say, regulate the sale of assault weapons (hypothetically), he could also be voting on, say, eliminating some health care provision. Senators end up needing to vote on lots of things that they may not actually support and that can later be used against them.

All senators have learned to speak out of both sides of their mouths. It requires a lot of attention for constituents to reconcile what they say with what they actually do.

Governors provide a stronger leadership role and don't have to roll in the dirt like senators do.

[politicasista]

7. I smell some Kerry-bashing.

[rpannier]

15. No Kerry Bashing.

Just an observation on those saying that Feingold is the guy. I like Russ, but I think history is against him.

[sendero]

19. How about some..

... generic Senator bashing. Nominating a senator is one of the dumbest things our party can do. It is just too easy to distort a voting record, and distorting is what our rivals are best at. Why play into their strengths?

[geek tragedy]

8. Governors have accomplishments, Senators have voting records. eom

[Lexingtonian]

9. none of that stuff matters

Russ is Jewish. That's enough for him to be unelectable nationally, unfortunately, in 2005.

The power of the Senate lies in its veto power. You can't amass a record of being creative and dynamic/productive and exemplary as a Senate incumbant- you have to take it from some other part of your adult life.

The Senate is The Grumbling Old Chiefs, the House is The Foolish Young Buck Warriors. The Governors are the clan and village chiefs who keep peace and order, the President is the War Chief of the tribe.

[CWebster]

13. Oh, I don't know about that

Kennedy busted through that WASP stranglehold and the times might shine more kindly on a Jewish politician--despite Lieberman. In fact, an "even-handed" Jew might be just the ticket.

[FrenchieCat]

10. In addition to what others have said here...

another problem is that Senators do not govern in the executive sense. They are part of a large deliberative body that have to compromise to move ahead (although the Repugs don't seem to compromise about much anymore).

They legislate, but they do not govern. They have no personal responsibility for the welfare of a population...not in the real sense.

Also, they tend to have only managed staffs of about 25-50 people at the most...

They tend to talk too much.....and say too little.

Notice that Kerry always had to spend the first 5 minutes of any speech thanking everyone, like he was at the Academy Award giving an acceptance speech or something. Just about when he started talking about anything of substance, the cameras from all of the coverage would break away...giving the impression that he had said very little, unless one watched C-Span. That really, really bugged me during the campaign.

Senators are in the habit of too many niceties, protocols and traditions. It makes them boring and ineffective as speakers and leader.

In fact, they lead nothing.

[gottaB]

20. a few points of disagreement

a. No personal responsibility for the welfare of a population? That overdraws the distinction.

b. Talk too much, say to little. Feingold is plain-spoken.

c. Too many, niceties, protocols and traditions. Feingold is nice, he plays by the rules, and speaks respectfully of Senate traditions, yet he is known for taking principled stances that set him against niceties, protocols and traditions.

[FrenchieCat]

22. I was answering the general question about Senators.....

and not about Feingold in particular. I do think that out of most of the Senators, he may be one of the few exceptions in terms of "droning on and on".

[CWebster]

11. Those mid-western populist-style Dems are on the mark

and easy on the eye too.


What if it was McCain vs Feingold?

[rpannier]

16. Very true

But do you really believe the fundamentalist ayatollahs are gonna support McCain? I think a better bet is Frist if it comes from the Senate.

[rfkrfk]

12. a Governor is his-her state-party's political leader,

or at least, honorary leader.
This happens, whether or not, he is running for president.
a Senator is just another person on the slate.

Running a political party, and giving orders,
even on a small scale, is a whole lot
different than being helped by others.

[Perky]

17. Nominees run as much against Congress as they to the other guy

Nobody "likes" Washington so everyone runs as an outsider, Its hard to win when a) you are running as an insider and b) you have a long record your opponent can attack and c) therere is a predispostion to executives as opposed to legislators (same phenomena is seen at the gubernatorial level).

Senators are rarely sucessful candidates for president.Kennedy really was an anomaly.

[CWebster]

18. Depends on how much the personality connects. nt

[rodeodance]

23. Rove hit and hit on Kerry's Senate votes--as someone hinted at above-

Senators have their history of votes that are always champed on (on both sides). Govs seen as managers (even Bush managed to persuade lots that he was a GRAND manager of the great state of Texas--whether is was or not is not the issue).

[Broca]

25. Why do Americans dislike Senators?

Perhaps some of it is cultural. In the novels and movies Senators whether Roman or modern American are portrayed as corrupt, rapacious, egocentric, power hungry misanthropes (usually males but hey I am sure that is historical coincidence).


Racine Journal Times editorial on Feingold.
http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2005/02/09/opinion/iq_3368305.txt

[newyawker99]

29. Hi Broca!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[CWebster]

27. Well, I guess Hillary hasn't got a shot either? nt

[ClassWarrior]

28. I'd judge based on an individual's character, not a random trend...

Trends are made to be broken. Russ is level-headed, squeaky clean, not at all goofy-looking, and -- most important -- AS PROGRESSIVE AS IT GETS.

He's the one... IF he accepts.

NGU.

[American Tragedy]

30. When a candidate runs straight from Senate they are judged on votes

There's nothing random about it. It's a characteristic of contemporary political campaigning. It may be a fairly recent development though; I've found no evidence that Nixon referred much at all to Kennedy's voting record in the Senate.

As others have noted above, legislative votes are extremely easy to distort and take out of context, especially votes on budgets, which may have hundreds of items. Thus, if you reject a defense budget for any reason at all, you're voting against the B-2 bomber! You're voting against body armor for the troops! You're voting against the military!

The only Senator that I would support for President is Feingold, because his record is consistent enough to explain and legitimize to the American people, and he presents himself very effectively. Plus, we'd be guaranteed Wisconsin, which really shouldn't be a swing state anyway.