What history teaches about who us dems should nominate

[mike from ri]

Consider these historical facts:

4 out of the last 5 presidents have been governors. (It was their last office before assuming the presidency). None came directly out of the Senate.

11 out of the last 12 presidents, representing about 82 out of the last 85 years of American history, moved to the presidency from executive-type positions (cabinet secretary, vice presidency, governorships, generalship/university presidency in the case of eisenhower).

In 220 years of american constitutional history, america has been been led by an ex-senator president in ony 6 of those years.

only once have the democrats elected a senator to the presidency and that was 50 years ago in a very narrow victory by an extraordinarily likeable person with military combat experience running against an extraordinarily unlikeable person in an era characterized by a very different political dynamic than prevailing now.

every elected president (gerry ford does not count as an elected president) in the last 45 years has has been from the south or the west.

every presidential race in memory except one (nixon v. humprhrey) has been won by the generally more likeable candidate.

* * * * * *

pun intended, richardson fits the bill: a governor from the southwest who even his critics find highly personable. Plus, he brings a bonus for a governor-candidate: he knows foreign policy. most decidedly, the other dem candidates do not fit the bill.

[mzmolly]

1. Thanks Mike.

Good to note.

[XemaSab]

2. I think Richardson would make a really strong VP

but there's something about him that's... not ready for prime time. :(

[Taverner]

3. It's because Senators campaign like Senators

Governors campaign like Presidents.

[mike from ri]

4. governors seem like pragmatic problem solvers

. . . which the american people like.

senator's seem like inside-the beltway bickerers which the american people don't like.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

7. Senators all too often fall into a long-winded bloviation about their

wonderful colleagues and all the things they passed with the help of {fill in the blank} and {fill in the blank again}. Being a Senator is a wonderful thing, no doubt. It's been said that every Senator thinks they should be President.

[blm]

5. You think the corpmedia cares what job you had or what kind of job you'll do for THEM?

This isn't the same old newsmedia that Kennedy had - or Carter - or Bill in 1992.

GOP cronies spent the 80s and 90s buying control of most broadcast media and it wasn't so ANY Dem senator, or governor, or General Jesus H. Christ the former Gov of Ohio could win the presidency unless they were going to profit from that Democrat in some way.

Really....history and the media is what you should take a closer look at.

And do you even really want to deal with the election fraud factor - the factor that ACTUALLY prevented Kerry from taking office?

[illinoisprogressive]

6. Mike, I can live with Richardson just fine. he is very cool.

[brazos121200]

8. The last three Democratic Presidents have been

from the south. Only two sitting Senators were ever elected to the Presidency in the 20th century, and both of them died in office in their first terms, although both were greatly loved. So we should probably elect a southerner who is a governor or ex-governor. There aren't many who fit that bill. Gen Wesley Clark, not a governor but ex-military, who isn't a candidate anymore, Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, and that's about it. Gov. Blanco?

[mike from ri]

13. the southwest will have to do

in the absence of a southerner gov in the race, the next best thing is is a gov from the southwest.

your points are well taken. richardson is the best fit.

[Mojambo]

9. We could nominate my dog and win in 2008. n/t

[ruggerson]

10. Where does your dog stand on driver's licenses for illegals?

n/t

[Mojambo]

12. Well, he recognizes that it is a difficult issue for governors, but refuses to endorse any program.

Unless I give him a treat...

[muntrv]

11. Governors have more managerial experience than Senators.

[mike from ri]

14. yes, govs come across as less ideological

even Reagan could offset his faults by pointing to his experience as a gov. people will accept policies they don't like form a gov because they sem them as pragmatists. reagan could cover a multitude of sins by running as an ex-gov.

gov richardson will be able to take more lefty positions and be forgiven for it by the mainstream elctorate because he has an executive background

[ddeclue]

15. It is more important to be a Southerner than a Governor.

Edwards is the best choice. Every Democrat elected since the Voting Rights Act of 1964 has been a Southerner - Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.

Doug D.

[mike from ri]

22. a south westerner like richardson is close enough

especially since the fast-growing mountain states are ever-more susceptible to a dem.

[sampsonblk]

16. I think you are missing some key points

First, knowing how things have been doesn't necessarily tell us how they should be, or how they work best.

The historical data also suggests we should nominate a white male who speaks only english. Its time to move forward.

[Blashyrkh]

18. You already have a President who can't speak English.

[JohnLocke]

17. Here's another one: every Democrat elected since 1960 has been a Southerner.

[karynnj]

19. There aren't that many

Ignoring LBJ because he ran as an incumbent President a year after Kennedy's murder, there were just Carter and Clinton. In fact, if you count that Kerry and Gore would have won elections that were fairly run with no voter suppression, you could say from 1960 until now: Excluding incumbent VPs or Presidents, there were 4 who won or should have won.

- 2 Southern governors

AND

2 MA Senators, with thick hair and initials JFK.

** It can also be noted that 1976 and 1992 were 2 years where it was highly likely the Democrat would win (even though it did not look that way in early to mid 1991, but in 1992 Bush was under 40%.

No one would make a claim that the best candidates were MA Senators with magic initials because it is obviously silly. The same holds true for the Southern Governor. The fact is that Bill Clinton is charismatic, though to many of us he is too high maintance. Carter with his down home honesty and sincerity was what people wanted after Nixon. (I know he ran against Ford, but I think it was still Nixon backlash.)

[mike from ri]

23. yes, being a gov is more important than being a southerner

that is the critical factor.

[karynnj]

24. I think you could make a point that the times dictate what is needed

Being a Governor does give you executive experience as we have continually heard from Guiliani. It does not give you any foreign policy experience. (There will be diplomatic experience in the sense that a good Governor might be called upon to arbitrate between state factions. Some of that skill is transferable.

In 1976, the country had turned from foreign affairs and the deepest concern was likely restoring honesty,decency, and trust in the federal government. It was hard to overestimate how shaken many were with what Watergate when dug up showed. Who could better fit the need than an outsider from Georgia who really seemed to mean it when he said he wouldn't lie to the country? In 1992, the media and the country had tired of Bush 1 and blamed the recession on him - and though it was already ebbing, it was too late. Who better than an ebullient governor who said he would listen and who represented a new generation and the energy it had? In both cases, wars had ended and the country was looking inward. In both cases, in the first few years the Presidents were on a steep learning curve on foreign policy. Both had difficulties - though Carter's were far worse.

In 2004, foreign policy knowledge was needed and the ability to connect to the military was a plus. It was the questions on foreign policy that helped John Kerry. Other than Clark, no one else had his level of knowledge. No matter who the 2004 candidate would have been, they would have had the anti abortion people (it was known that 2 SC justices were likely at stake), the media that was complicit on the war, a Republican smear group tailored to them, and the terror warning system used against them. All these things emerged in strength at the beginning of the general election. That Kerry was able to regain strength and end up in striking distance was a remarkable testimony to how well he fit what was needed.

In 2008, a superman or superwoman may be needed. The country has enormous foreign policy and domestic issues that are beyond urgent. The positive way to put it, is as Kerry did last March at a book hearing when he said that the enormous challenges will give the winner an opportunity for greatness on a par with FDR - because so many things need to be fixed. (I doubt I was alone in the room in thinking that he had the ability to fill this role, but he is not running.) What might be looked at here is the ability both to immediately impact some problems and the ability to grow. Given the specialness needed the idea that the area of the country someone comes from just sounds irrelevant.

[sampsonblk]

20. Civil Rights Act of 1964

Since then, a northern liberal can't even get close down there. But it has to change someday. We have to change it. Why not now?

When we see a bad trend, we don't follow it, we work hard to reverse it.

[mike from ri]

21. next best thing to being a southerner

is being a south westerner. richardson has that going for him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Bill Richardson Seems Like A Good Fella

That being said the most likely outcome is that Clinton, Obama, or Edwards will be the Democratic nominee...That's an empirical observation and not necessarily a normative one...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. This is bad stats - confusing correlation with causation is a classic error.

I have some coins. I flip them each ten times. The penny comes up heads 6 times, the tuppence 4, the 5p 5, the 10p 5, the 20p 7, the 50 4 and the pound 6

This does not mean that pennies are more likely to throw heads than other coins.

Now, it's not *necessarily* the case that the things you point out are as unlinked to victory as denomination is to chance of coming up heads. But you can't just point out the correlation and leave it at that.




The only Democrat to win the presidency in the last 25 years was called Clinton.

No black Democrat has ever lost a presidential election.