The U.S. Senate is comprised of some of the most politically powerful people in America. Not only do Senators have the ability to make laws, they have the authority to ratify treaties, block nominees for Federal judgeships, and can even impeach the Chief Executive. These 100 men and women have an astonishing degree of influence, prestige, and political potency. So why can they not get elected President?
In the past sixty years, there have been fourteen Presidential elections:
Eight races included at least one Senator while only two (Truman and Kennedy) have won.No Senator has won an election in the past forty years (10 elections). Former governors have won six of the past seven elections. Former Congressmen have won the election four times, a retired Army General twice. The last Republican Senator to win the Whitehouse was Warren G. Harding in 1920.*
Whether this data is representative of a particular bias against Senators or just an amusing piece of trivia is beyond my ability to discern. I think there is some significance, though, in the statistic that former governors are more likely than any other type of elected official (including vice-presidents) to advance to the Oval Office. Moving from executive branch to executive branch has to be easier than attempting to make the direct transition from the legislature or judiciary (oddly enough, no judge -- at least in this century -- has been a candidate for the Presidency).
If I knew nothing else about the 2004 election other than the fact that one candidate was a former governor and one a Senator, I would put my money on the governor winning the race. Judging from past election results, Kerry has his work cut out for him. He can, at least, take comfort in knowing that the last three Senator to become President were all Democrats. Perhaps, if that information had been pointed out to Bob Dole he would have been spared years of frustrating losses.
*Correction: I had mistakenly claimed that Calvin Coolidge had been the last Republican Senator elected president. Coolidge, however, was only a state senator and had previously been a governor. Thanks to Marty Keller for the correction.
Senators have a great obstacle to overcome in ascending to the presidency: their own legislative records. Senators leave a substantial paper trail that provides fodder for their opponents. Governors, on the other hand, have a more administrative than legislative role, and endure somewhat less scrutiny. Of the two senators you mentioned as winning an election, one was an incumbent. Maybe senators would be best advised to seek the number two spot and cross their fingers ;)
Hey Joe, you said that the Senate "can even impeach the Chief Executive." I was under the impression that only the House did that, and the Senate found if the impeachment was justified. It is my understanding that the House has the sole power to impeach. But, I'm not the one going to law school, so perhaps you can clarify.
Senators may be perceived as being too 'Washington' and not enough 'American'. Governors can be more easily perceived as representing the people against the central bureacracy.
Another factor is the role that governors, mayors, and others from the executive branch play during times of crisis. Rudy Guiliani marching down the streets of NY, organizing recovery operations, keeping everyone as calm as possible. The governors flying in to disaster areas to supervise cleanup operations and distribute funds. Legislators show up to get their picture taken, then back to the "greatest deliberative bodies", while the governors, well, govern.
And another, I believe, is the way Washington is perceived. Ronald Reagan can run as an outsider. So could Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. They could claim that their experience in government hadn't been tainted by Washington's elitism, true or not. That is compelling for many voters.
Great post, Joe. I think Rob is on the money noting the extensive legislative records of Senators. They don't have as much room to waffle or change their positions.
However, I also wonder about correlation and causation. Perhaps it is not a person's record as a Senator that makes them unlikely candidates, perhaps successful senators have preexisting qualities that are good for the senate, but not good for the Presidency. Some of this was discussed in your "moving from executive branch to executive branch" comment; but perhaps, even more so, those who are cut out to be senators are of a different cloth a priori than governors and presidents. With such an extensive correlative list, the associations are hard to dismiss as coincidence. I would love to see a real academic piece on the issue sometime. It might be quite interesting (and revealing).
Erunion Hey Joe, you said that the Senate "can even impeach the Chief Executive.I was under the impression that only the House did that, and the Senate found if the impeachment was justified."
To be honest, I’m not sure exactly how the whole procedure works. I was just going off Art. 1, Sec. 3 of the Constitution:
"Impeachment" is roughly equivalent to an indictment, i.e., the House makes a determination that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial by the Senate, which then determines (a 2/3 vote is required) whether the official in question committed the offense(s) and is therefore subject to removal.
Rob: Senators have a great obstacle to overcome in ascending to the presidency: their own legislative records….Maybe senators would be best advised to seek the number two spot and cross their fingers ;)
I think you’re right. I think having a legislative record makes it rather hard to deny a candidates position on many issues. This was my first thought but then I wondered why Congressman had an easier time getting elected. After looking at it further I noticed that all former Representatives that became President were former Vice Presidents first (Nixon, Johnson, GHW Bush).
Steve: Senators may be perceived as being too 'Washington' and not enough 'American'. Governors can be more easily perceived as representing the people against the central bureacracy.
Kevin They could claim that their experience in government hadn't been tainted by Washington's elitism, true or not. That is compelling for many voters.
Both excellent points. Americans want a President who has both experience and an “outsider” status. Governors have an easier time fitting that bill than Senators are able to do.
John Perhaps it is not a person's record as a Senator that makes them unlikely candidates, perhaps successful senators have preexisting qualities that are good for the senate, but not good for the Presidency.
I agree, though I’m not so sure if the qualities are necessarily preexisting. I think the skills required to be successful in the Senate (the ability to compromise, choosing which legislation is worth fighting for) is acquired, or at least honed, by experience.
Senators are also just one of a hundred cogs in the wheel. Even the most powerful of them don’t have the ability to implement changes by themselves (as governors can do) but require the help of their peers in order to be successful. I think these alliances can give the impression that Senators are more “partisan” than other types of politicians. It’s difficult to suck up to Ted Kennedy in order to get his vote without appearing to be in cahoots with him.
The last point is quite good! I would also contend that it teaches them to "Waffle" rather than make decisive and permanent decisions. This is such an interesting topic.
A technical point: Calvin Coolidge was never a U. S. Senator. He was nominated vice president while serving as Governor of Massachusetts (yes, another governor who became president). Previous to his election as Governor in 1918, he had served as lieutenant governor and in the state senate.
Hey Marty,
Thanks for the correction. That sets the date back another four years to the Harding Presidency. Since he is often considered the "worst President in U.S. history" it is no wonder it has taken so long for another Republican Senator to get elected.
(oddly enough, no judge -- at least in this century -- has been a candidate for the Presidency)
Roy Moore in 2008!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36899
The Bush campaign's attacks on Kerry (which are not unlike the Clinton campaign's attacks on Dole) are perfect examples of why it's hard for senators to get elected. With hundreds, if not thousands of votes under one's belt, it's very easy for a political opponent to go into that record and find a vote or two that are counter to one's stated position (at least on the surface). These votes are always taken out of their legislative context, as well.
Given that the mainstream media has devoted a great deal of time to this issue, I'm surprised that it's just making it here.
BTW: Truman was elected Vice-President in '44 as a sitting Senator, not President. Of course he won election on his own in '48 as a sitting President.
It is not uncommon at all for Vice Presidents to be from the Senate: Gore, Quayle, Mondale, Humphrey, Johnson, Nixon, Barkley, Truman for example. Rising Senators are more likely to be Vice-Presidents than just about any other office.
Cheney is most defintely the exception as someone who was not holding any office at all before he was elected Vice President.
he held office at Enron and hallibuton, isn't that enough for the MTV generation?
I saw an interesting analysis that suggested that more than 14 years on the national stage is all that is required kill your chances of being elected. The only Exception(in recent history) I recall was George HW Bush. (I like this analysis in that it means Hillary will be too stale in 2008.)
Most of the reason I think this is true is due to senatosis, the malady of never having anything stupid you say or do seriously challenged by your peers, and that you can spend years in the senate doing nothing but posture.
For Senators then the only real challenges they ever face is election. Kerry doesn't have to work too hard to keep himself in office in Mass., which explains why he is so intellectually flabby.
Vigilance: I'm sure most liberals would welcome a Roy Moore candidacy for the same reason conservatives welcome a Nader candidacy.
A nit: Charles Evans Hughes was a member of the Supreme in 1916. He resigned his seat in order to run against Wilson in 1916
A large part may have to do with the public at large seeing Congress as ineffective. That is, Congress sans their own Senators. They're doing a great job. Having one of those ineffective Senators as President? Now, who would want that?
Interesting post, Joe.
I think there is a lot to the issue of Senators' exposure to political criticism for their voting records. Governors and Vice Presidents have respectable political stature but a lot less to answer for, which probably gives them an advantage.
However, it seemed to me that there was something missing in your analysis, though I wasn't sure what it was. After looking at the historical record more carefully, I'm not sure the trend you point out is all that meaningful. I think the 8 cases you identify since Roosevelt are mostly a collection of singularities, rather than a real pattern.
For one thing, I only count 5 who ran for President on their record as Senators. Jason, above, points out that Truman was President and had previously been VP before running for President in his own name. If I am not mistaken, you are also counting the Nixon/Humphry race of 1968, amd the Reagan/Mondale race of 1984. The losing candidates in both these races (and the winning candidate in one) were former Senators who were better known, and had most recently served, as Vice President. I would think this dwarfs the significance of the candidates' time in the Senate (especially for the Nixon/Humphry race, where both candidates had been VP).
You also seem to have overlooked Strom Thurmond in 1948, but appropriately so. He represents a special case. As a third-party breakaway candidate, he was not in a position to win the office; his candidacy served other (far uglier) purposes.
So, considering only the cases of Senators who held no more-recent office before heading the ticket of a major party, that gives us:
Kennedy/Nixon 1960 (Senator Kennedy wins)
Johnson/Goldwater 1964 (Senator Goldwater loses)
Nixon/Humphry 1968 (Senator Humphry loses)
Nixon/McGovern 1972 (Senator McGovern loses)
Clinton/Dole 1996 (Senator Dole loses)
The record here is even worse than you suggest - a 20% victory rate for Senators, vs. 25% as you report - or is it?
I think most of this small sample of races must be treated as unique, contingent events, where the outcome was dependent on issues that had little to do with the winning or losing Senator's legislative record. For instance, in 1964 Johnson, even with increasing troubles in Vietnam, was riding the Kennedy sympathy wave, plus Goldwater was a particularly unattractive candidate. The meltdown of 1968 had to do with social and intra-party politics that no candidate could have survived. And McGovern in 72 simply ran a horrible campaign, in addition to getting (unfairly) sandbagged by his running mate's psychiatric history.
The only two "real" political contests - ones in which candidates competed against each other without bizarre distractions (assassinations, wars, riots, electroshock therapy . . .) - involving Senators running on their Capitol Hill records were, I think, Kennedy/Nixon and Clinton/Dole - and the results are split. (You could argue that Nixon, as a former Senator, counts against Senatorial success, but he later won twice even after losing to Kennedy.)
Considering all races in which either a present or former Senator ran, and counting Nixon three times for his three races, there were 12 Senator-candidates since 1948, and 6 VP-candidates. The Senator-candidates won 5 times and lost 7 times, splitting 5 races in which both candidates had at some point served in the Senate. Of the two races in which only one candidate was a current or former Senator, the Senator lost both times, but one of those was a former VP. All in all, being a Senator does not seem to be such a bad deal; at least, there is very little evidence to suggest so. As for being VP more recently than being Senator, those candidates have appeared in 6 races, winning 4 times and losing 3 times (both candidates were ex-VPs in the Nixon-Humphry race). Being VP seems to be a slight advantage (and note that all these VPs are former Senators also), while being "only" a Senator is a slight disadvantage, but the difference is only one race in either case.
Finally, removing both Thurmond and Nixon as special cases (Nixon ran three times, once as a sitting President) has ex-Senators winning twice, losing three times - again only a one-race success differential.
In short, of the 9 Senators or former Senators who ran for office since Truman, in almost every case their success or failure can be traced back to the specific circumstances of their campaigns. When you remove the flukes, the disasters, and the oddballs, you have only a small number of ordinary races with pretty well-mixed results. There is, in fact, in that entire period only one race in which a Senator ran on his Senatorial record alone, in a campaign that was not sidetracked by unpredictable outside events (Clinton/Dole 96). The Senator lost, but a record of 0-1 hardly means anything. It'll be 1-1 in 6 more months.
Time to hit the history books. Name a President, that was elected direct from Congress, that completed his first term as POTUS. Being VPOTUS first does not count.
Has there ever been one? McKinley would count as a senator, but i can't think any Rep who did it.