They told us in 2004 that "Senators Never Win" because they don't have ADMIN EXPERIENCE

[NAO]

In the run up to the 2004 election, an oft repeated media slogan - (say it enough, it becomes true, or at least people believe it's true, which makes it become true) - was that Senators NEVER win the White house, it's always Governors. Because Governors have ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE, while Senators have only LEGISLATIVE EXPERIENCE.

So how do the primary contenders line up from each party:

The Democrats:

Senator Hillary Clinton
Senator Barack Obama
Senator John Edwards
Senator Joe Biden


The Republicans:

Governor Mitt Romney
Governor Mike Huckabee
Mayor Rudy Giuliani


So it's only a matter of time, IMHO, before the media start repeating that stuff about "Senators never winning/Senators don't have administrative experience" etc.

And it doesn't matter WHICH Democrat wins the primary, because whoever it is, they will be a Senator. And regardless of who wins the Republican nomination, they will have "Administrative Experience".

[Caseman]

1. Joe Biden isn't JUST a Senator...

...he is also a chairman of several committees. And if you think the Republicans would have anything on him, then you're arguement is flawed.

[1corona4u]

4. Precisely.

[1corona4u]

14. Let me just say this...

I have been in executive management almost half of my life, and all you really need is common sense, good time management, good orginization skills, good people skills, and the ability to motivate people, as well as control them. As far as the fiscal stuff, most educated people have that. That's what you need to manage.

Joe Biden has proved time and time again, his skills, his abilities, and the fact that he is omnipresent. He knows everything that is going on, everywhere. he works well with people in the Senate, as well as being a chairman, twice.(foreign/judicial)

Management isn't that difficult. Seriously.

[Wilms]

2. Kerry Won n/t

[gateley]

5. And Kennedy. nt

[FlyingSquirrel]

7. Both by VERY NARROW MARGINS. nt

[gateley]

11. Yep, but it was a win nonetheless. nt

[ellisonz]

23. Win is a win.

[Kucinich4America]

24. Not lately it isn't

2000 was a win. Probably 2004 as well. But the LOSER still sits in the White House.

So a win isn't necessarily a win anymore. And while things like electro-fraud machines and DLC corruption within this party obviously need to be addressed, the immediate question is, "If you support a senator as the Democratic candidate for 2008, what makes him (or God forbid, her) able to overcome the statistical improbability of a senator beating a governor in the general election?"

[ellisonz]

27. By your logic it doesn't matter if it's a Vice President or a Senator or a Governor.

So why bother with Kucinich because even if by an act of God he won the nomination the election is rigged anyways!

All we can really do is hope for a landslide...

[silverojo]

18. So did former Senator Albert Gore n/t

[Kucinich4America]

19. Sitting Vice President Albert Gore

So he had the executive branch experience. 8 years of it.

Maybe, just maybe this is the election that will change 40 years of history? But, after the last 8 years, can we afford to risk it?

If Gore was in this race it would be his without question. But he's not. So who else do we have who's not a senator?

The Repuke front runner will either be a governor, or a former mayor of the largest city in the US, who will be treated as a governor. In fact, arguably you could say that 9u11iani was "more" of an executive than Mike Huckabee, if you compare the population of Arkansas to NYC. That's not an endorsement of either one of them, but it's how the 'Pukes will spin it, and given 40 years of history, I couldn't blame them.

It's beginning to look to me like the DLC is throwing the game again, and I don't know why the Hell that isn't obvious to anyone who knows history.

If "electability" is your only measure of a candidate, I suggest you vote for Bill Richardson.

[babylonsister]

3. But the rethugs are unelectable. Did you ever think of that?

One is worse than the other and all three that you mentioned are not electable for one reason or another. As their story comes out with many truths, or they give interviews, their numbers plummet.
There really is no viable rethug compared to Dems. That's why they're hanging their hat on Huckabee, and he's the worst one of all if anyone cares to read about his transgressions.

[Kucinich4America]

20. Chimp was unelectable, and even MORE un-re-electable

but he's there, isn't he? :evilfrown:

[FlyingSquirrel]

6. I'm afraid I agree (about the media drumming on this)

That's why I was so disappointed when Gov. Mark Warner dropped out early. And why even though I'm not a big Richardson supporter, I don't want to count him out.

It's also why I think Edwards has the best chance of the top three senators. He was not a senator for very long, has been doing other things for the past 4 years, and would not cause the loss of a Senate seat if he won the election. He has fewer Senate votes that can be analyzed and misconstrued and has less of an image of being a lawmaker instead of a leader.

[Azathoth]

8. This has bother me also

None of our candidates (with the exception of Richardson) have any executive experience. Voters love Governors, but they are deeply distrustful of Senators. The last one to go from the Senate right into the White House was JFK, and that wasn't exactly a landslide...

[sandnsea]

9. It's called politics

And I wish people would quit buying into all this rhetoric and sloganeering. Of course our side uses it too.

It didn't matter in 2004 and it doesn't matter now. What matters is who is going to get done what you want done. That's all.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Clinton Used To Be President (So I'm Told)

So that should count.

[seasat]

12. IMHO, it's not administrative experience, it's their voting record

Every Senator has a recent voting record that can be used against them. Being in a legislative body requires compromise. You also have to answer to the narrow special interests that are in your state. Since senators are on the national stage they are often faced with much more controversial legislation that may be popular or appear prudent at the time but later turns out to be the wrong choice. The Patriot act is an example. To keep alliances in the senate, you sometimes have to support a colleague's bill so they'll support yours.

When someone attaches an amendment to a larger bill, you can get accused of supporting that amendment if you vote for the larger bill. My personal choice, Richardson, has a few votes like that from his 14 years in congress. He was accused of voting for Yucca Mountain because he voted for the 1987 budget reconciliation bill and legislation for Yucca Mountain was buried in it as an amendment. However, , he voted against all the Yucca Mountain bills that were separate. If a legislator votes only for the bills, they approves of completely, then they'd end up voting against almost every bill and would never accomplish anything.

The executive experience is a plus, but not having a senate voting record that can be used against you is the biggest plus.

[babylonsister]

17. Yes! Whatever votes a senator casts doing his or her job can be used

against them; it's a double-edged sword.

[David Dunham]

13. You forgot Sen McCain who may win Gop nomination

[FlyingSquirrel]

16. Good point

And in my opinion McCain has a shot still. In fact he's the least crazy one of the lot and so the one most likely to give us trouble in the General. Even if he's not a governor. He got crossover votes from a lot of democrats when he ran in 2000. I even donated to his campaign (something I have since regretted although he certainly would have been better than Bush).

[liberalpragmatist]

15. I don't think most voters care whether the nominees are governors or senators

I highly doubt most voters actually care. Yes, senators have long public records, but so do governors, who have to sign or veto every bill that emerges from the state legislatures. And they often have their own skeletons (remember Willie Horton)?

There simply aren't enough modern examples for their to be any statistically significant measure. Truth is (including Bob Dole), there have only been SIX major party nominees since 1900 who were sitting senators. Warren Harding (R) in 1920, John F. Kennedy (D) in 1960, Barry Goldwater (R) in 1964, George McGovern (D) in 1972, Bob Dole (R) in 1996, and John Kerry (D) in 2004.

Of these, Harding and Kennedy won. Kerry came quite close. Goldwater, McGovern, and Dole all lost in landslides (the first two in blowouts). Arguably, the last 3 all faced unwinnable races; it's hard to argue that the main reason they lost was because they were senators. It's likely because the incumbent presidents were popular and because Goldwater and Mcgovern, especially, were seen as extremists.

Plenty of governors, meanwhile, have lost the presidency. Just ask the following presidents: Charles Evans Hughes, James Cox, Al Smith, Alf Landon, Tom Dewey, Adlai Stevenson and Michael Dukakis. Not all that many votes would have added George W. Bush to that list.

Also, I would like to point out that no former governor held the White House from 1945 through 1977 - a period of 32 years:

Harry Truman (1945-1953): former senator, vice president
Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961): general, NATO commander
John F. Kennedy (1961-1963): senator
Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969): senator, vice president
Richard M. Nixon (1969-1974): senator, Vice President
Gerald Ford (1974-1977): representative (House Minority Leader), vice president (appointed)

Both the governors nominated between those years -- Tom Dewey in 1948 and Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 -- LOST. Governors do have a good chance of being elected president, but there are plenty of exceptions and these things tend to depend more on the vagaries of politics than concrete laws of political science.

The best conclusion one can draw from the historical record is that senators DO seem to have a hard time getting nominated. But in the general election, there doesn't seem to be an obvious disadvantage.

[Kucinich4America]

22. Vice President is also an executive position

And your own list has four veeps on it.

JFK got elected. RFK probably would have, had he not been murdered. But in the last 40 years, a Senator hasn't done it. Yeah you could debate Ohio, Diebold, and Uncle Tom Blackwell in 2004 until the cows come home, but the fact is that a Democratic candidate should have BURIED Chimp in the biggest landslide in this nation's history, and the Senator forced on us by the DLC did not do that.

Your list of governors who lost, such as Dewey, or Dukakis, or Chimp for that matter, lost to incumbents. Truman was the sitting President in 1948. Poppy Bush was the sitting VP who moved up (officially) in 1988. And Gore was the sitting VP who won in 2000, but sadly did not get to take his office in 2001 :(

Eisenhower was the exception, being the guy with no political experience at all. But with WWII still a recent enough memory in the 1952 election, being the commanding general who won the war was considered "executive" enough. General Clark's supporters tried to make a similar argument for him in 2004, though obviously his command experience wasn't quite the same as Ike's.

[cali]

21. not true. that was not parroted repeatedly in 2004 by the media

and there's a big reason why: Governors don't have foreign policy experience and since 2001 that trumps administrative experience.

[Kucinich4America]

25. Another advantage for Richardson, then?

A governor WITH foreign policy experience.

[cali]

26. Richardson's experience is definitely

a plus in my book, but that doesn't seem to be the case in Iowa or the other early primary states.

[bklyncowgirl]

28. You for got Governor Bill Richardson who's actually ahead of Biden in the polls

You also left out Senator John McCain.

I personally support Richardson because of his mix of executive and foreign policy experience.

[progressoid]

29. Just like George Bush had administrative experience?

:crazy: