Warren G. Harding, 1920. He was U.S. Senator from Ohio. His opponent for the presidency was James M. Cox, then governor of Ohio. Harding was very fortunate to campaigning in the aftermath of Woody Wilson's 2nd term screwups and won the presidency by campaign on a "back to normalcy" platform and people voted GOP to protest eight years of RAT plurality rule. Of course, in 2008, the Dem candidate would be able to use this label instead of Allen
(It should be noted that all the winning candidates BEFORE Harding were also sitting Governors rather Senators: Wilson, Taft, T.R. Roosevelt, McKinley, etc.)
Since neither logic nor reason seem to appeal to the Allen devotees, and they learned nothing from the 1996 and 1964 elections, the only solution will be to beat their boy in primary so we can keep the White House in GOP hands by running an Washington outsider. There's should be a pool of some really good candidates by 2008: Pawlenty, Blackwell, Owens, Ehrlich or Romney (IF they move rightward on the abortion issue), maybe even Rossi if we prove Gregorie stole the election in Washington state. They make sure Condi Rice and George Allen remain at their posts, doing the good work they were choosen to do.
The Republicans have elected only 1 sitting Senator in the history of the Party: Warren G. Harding. All the rest (I'm betting) were either Governors or Generals or Vice Presidents - people with experience running large bureaucracies.
Conclusion from history: Run a Republican Senator in 2008 and lose.
Well the Redskin's lost just before the election and the incumbent president (GWB) won, contrary to all of the prognosticating. I get so tired of hearing that Allen can't win because he's a Senator. Anything can happen, and it usually does.
I think that is unnecessarily harsh. I just don't see the Governor vs. Senator issue as the huge controlling factor that so many cite. The fact that Warren G. Harding was the last Republican Senator elected President is interesting, but it doesn't convince me of the futility of Allen's running. Given the scope of international issues today, I think a Governor's lack of foreign policy experience might give some voters pause as well.
There also is the fact that Senators generally have higher recognition outside their home states than do Governors in today's media climate (that can cut either way). I think there is a lot of risk in putting too much stock in the "Senators don't win, we need a Governor" theory. It seems to me that every thread I read about Allen running, about the third or fourth post is "he won't win because he's a Senator, we need to run a Governor." Then about ten posts later comes the "he was governor of Virginia" part. I think to the extent that Governors have sometimes fared better than Senators, you have to look at the underlying reasons and try to apply them to current situations.
As an interesting trivia sidebar to your Harding comment... his was the first presidential election in which women voted. Some historians believe the race was affected by his personal good looks and his wife influencing women voters. So maybe the comparison to 2008 is the fight for women voters? It amazes me how some women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman and she "cares" so much. Ugh.