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.
I assume you meant to say he might not carry Virginia? I just don't put much stock in polls, especially at this point in the process. I think if we've learned anything in recent years, it is that polls must be taken with a shaker, not a grain, of salt. I still don't understand your assumption that Senator Allen can't win swing states, if that is what you are saying. I do think his experience in the U.S. Senate, to the extent it has led to him increasing his familiarity with other state issues and networks, will help him in that arena.
I guess I just don't see the impact of the regional issues the way some do. I think the Senator/Governor issue, as well as the regional issues, are instructive but not controlling. I agree with you as to the danger of assuming an easy win over Hillary Clinton. In that regard, I am always reminded of George Allen's victory in the gubernatorial race over Mary Sue Terry, the Democratic candidate who was, if I remember right, the incumbent Lt. Governor. I seem to recall she had something like a forty point lead at one point. I do think George Allen's victory in that race bodes well for him as a campaigner, particularly when paired with his experience in the U.S. Senate.
... as if Lurch faired (sic) any better in 2004 by citing the fact he used to be Dukakis right hand guy in Mass. before he was Senator.
I don't recall Kerry ever citing that fact; indeed, I thought he kept his past association with Dukakis pretty well hidden! I don't think you can compare the position of Lt. Governor with Governor anyway. And even if you could, doesn't your comment underscore that guberatorial level experience isn't necessarily helpful? If I read your post correctly, it seems to me that you do not necessarily think having been Governor is helpful, but you think having been a U.S. Senator is detrimental. It seems to me that you are arguing that a Senator is automatically disadvantaged, and I just can't agree with that premise.
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 guess this is the heart of our disagreement. I just don't see President Reagan's having been from California and Illinois as a controlling factor; nor do I think President G.H.W. Bush's background from Texas and New England was a major issue, either. The state handicapping thing always seems to me to be of limited value, particularly given the nature of media coverage today vs. even twenty years ago. One could argue, for instance, that one of the things that helped President Reagan was that his acting career had helped him to have national recognition even before he held national office. I think most people would not even have remembered that Pres. Bush 41 came from Texas; his New England upbringing seemed much more noticeable to the average viewer, I'd say.
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.
Now, now, no need to get catty! By and large, Virginia is, I think, pretty fortunate. Don't forget, however, that Virginia voters are stuck with John Warner as well as Mark Warner, so they too have their cross to bear! It also might be worth noting that Virginia does have a fairly broad cross section of voters: everything from liberal northern Virginia to the Kentucky border areas. Certainly most states have those types of variables nowadays, but I think Virginia may have them even slightly more so: everything from D.C. commuters to coal miners, military installations to academia. So having campaigned statewide in Virginia might be useful on a national level.