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.
Man what a trophy wife!
It's not just that he's a Senator, he's a Senator from a rock-solid GOP, Inc. state on the east coast and yet polls show he might even carry his home state if he went up against the RAT governor of Virigina. George Allen is doing a fine job for Virigina but he's not presidential material. We ridicule the Dems for running D.C. insiders from reliable blue states who don't even poll high in their own state, yet a bunch of people on this board want to try the SAME stragedy on OUR side and their ONLY argument on how we'll "win" swing states like New Mexico, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc., is that we MUST ASSUME the Dem nominee will be "Hillary". That is not an argument based on facts or reason. Certainly George Allen could win in THEORY but given how close we came to "President Gore" I don't want to risk that theory on the premise we will waltz into the white house against "Hillary".
>> 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. <<
Yeah, they keep repeating that line over and over, as if Lurch faired any better in 2004 by citing the fact he used to be Dukakis right hand guy in Mass. before he was Senator.
>> 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. <<
The current situtation is that we have held the White House for two terms not because President Bush is a particularly brillant campaigner like the Gipper, but because the Dems managed to come up with horrific losers named Gore and Kerry. Compare that to how the GOP did in 1980-1988 with a California Governor that was raised in Illinois and a longtime Washington official who lived in Texas and was raised in New England; followed by a Vice-President from Texas with a running mate who was Senator from the heartland state of Indiana.
I'm not ruling out that we could run a Senator and win some swing states, I'm saying the Senator who would accomplish that ain't George Allen. Allen would be far better at rallying the party's base if he was a V.P. candidate paired with someone like Governor Pawlenty. And I'm getting really tired of Virgina freepers gloating about how great their state is and everytime some RATs win in Virigina to disprove that theory, it's all the fault of "yankee transplants" in Northern VA.