I don't see that as an argument.
Massachussetts is small, lib, democratic.
Virginian is bigger, has a decent electoral vote count, and, culturally and politically, aligns with a lot more red statest than Mass. Uh...not a lot more, all of them.
Yes, hence when the Dems nominate Senators from there, they only carry OTHER small, liberal, Democrat states and have trouble competing anywhere else. Even the original JFK himself BARELY beat Nixon in 1960 and would have NEVER won TX and IL without vote fraud.
>> Virginian is bigger, has a decent electoral vote count, and, culturally and politically, aligns with a lot more red statest than Mass.
Yep. And the reverse is true. VA is a moderately sized, conservative, solidly Republican (in federal electons) state. Hence, any candidate from there will carry other moderately sized, conservative, solidly Republican states... and struggle to win over anything else. Swing states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsyvania, Oregon, etc. would more likely to vote for some folky red-state Democrat Governor than vote for Republican from a "safe" Republican state (just ask Bob Dole)
>> I don't see that as an argument. <<
Thank you for proving my point. Governors from competative states have a far, far better chance of winning. See Clinton, Reagan, and Carter for more info.
We eeked by the last two Presidential elections even with a Governor on the ticket. I'd rather not have to push our luck even further by running a Senator and risk hearing the phrase "President Richardson", "President Warner", or "President Visalk" in four years.