I really don't get this BS that just because someone is a Senator, they can't win or they will make a lousy President. You pick the President based on the person, not whether they were a Senator or a Governor. Besides, the Historical sample is too small to draw real conclusions.
The knock on having a Senator run for President is that they don't have the CEO mentality to lead a country.
That being said, if there were a decent candidate who came from the Senate, I'd consider voting for him/her.
There are few sitting Senators with the charisma and leadership to blow away voters right now...okay, probably none.
The knock on having a Senator run for President is that they don't have the CEO mentality to lead a country.
That being said, if there were a decent candidate who came from the Senate, I'd consider voting for him/her.
There are few sitting Senators with the charisma and leadership to blow away voters right now...okay, probably none.
I agree that the historical sample is too small, and that the person will largely determine success or failure. However, a Senator does have one disadvantage that Governors do not. Senators tend to have a rather lengthy voting record that can be picked apart or easily taken out of context. It's hard to explain that the reason you voted for this bill or against that one was because of some procedural technicality having nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's easy to find a handful of votes that make you look bad, no matter what your position is. The Governor has no such voting record and can more easily shape his positions without having to worry about how he voted on Bill ABC, 12 years ago.