Usually the best way to get yourself taken seriously as a presidential candidate is to hold or have held some executive office – governor, big-city mayor, even VPOTUS. But this year, all three front-runners are U.S. senators who have never held an executive office. How did that happen? What does it bode for the next administration?
Senators have national name recognition that most governors don’t, which may be an increasing advantage. The ones who are left are particularly well-known. There was also a lack of high-profile governors this time out - Richardson and Huckabee weren’t big names and Romney couldn’t catch on.
Well, Arnold can’t run. Jeb is handicapped by the Bush name. Rick Perry is unknown even in the state of Texas. Not quite sure why Pataki didn’t run. Perhaphs he thought Guiliani would canibalize his support? Tom Vilsack tried to get in the race, but never picked up any support.
At least we won’t have to endure 4-8 years of comedians having fun with the name “Vilsack.”
Presidents don’t do all that much. It is far too big a job for one man to be hands on all of it. He has a committee that selects cabinet heads . Then off they go.
I’m guessing he found that Iowans weren’t all that interested.
Looks like, no matter what, next Jan. 20 the first incumbent U.S. senator since JFK will be sworn in as President. I think it’s just a coincidence that’s how it worked out this time around. A big-state governor might very well get in the race and win next time around. Since 1960, the trend favors governors and ex-governors as successful presidential candidates (Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush the Lesser).
Thank God this isn’t a hockey thread…
Because not even New Yorkers would vote for him? We couldn’t wait to get rid of that guy. So much hope for Spitzer who unfortunately ain’t performing that well.
That’s true. Just like Rudy and Romney, he was running on the ‘my own people don’t like me anymore, how’s about you guys?’ platform.
You do know all three of these guys left office of their own accord: none of them was voted out, right?
Yes. Do you know how unpopular they are in their home states? I know what New Yorkers think of Rudy and Pataki, and given the way Romney “adjusted” his viewpoints on so many issues during his campaign, I’m pretty sure Massachusetts residents feel the same - if they didn’t already feel that way about him.
One factor is that a two-term administration has almost automatically been followed by the VP getting the party’s top nomination, typically almost unopposed. But then it’s been almost automatic that a two-term administration hasn’t been widely despised, either. In fact, no one associated with this administration had a realist chance and didn’t even bother.
With so thin a field to pick from McCain got the nomination almost by default - every other candidate was either a clown or an ass.