Governors have experience administering large governmental organizations. I think that’s one reason that Reagan and Bush 43 were effective at getting things done.
OTOH governors are apt to be inexperienced at foreign affairs. That was certianly true of Carter, Bush 43, and Clinton.
Sorry for premature submission (or noctural submission, if you like.)
Senators may have good ideas of what to do, but may not know how to accomplish them. That was true of JFK IMHO, although he had become far more skilled at the time of his assassination.
There is one background that includes experience in both foreign affairs and managing large bureaucracies: Military leader. Eisenhower was in fact a skillful President, who quietly accomplished a great deal, including dumping of Joseph McCarthy.
I’m assuming you’re referring to U.S. Senators? What about presidents who were neither governors nor U.S. senators nor military men? Like Abraham Lincoln?
I like “haberdasher” as the “best background for president” myself, although “peanut farmer” runs a close second.
Not to mention baseball executive and movie actor. What all these have in common is that they’re private. Can Duck Duck Goose’s post be generalized to say that private sector business experience is useful?
Between Governors or Senators, if all other things are considered equal, I believe Governors are better prepared to “manage” the Federal Government.
Military leaders have similar experience with bureaucracies, and, as you mention, often have insight into foreign affairs.
Though background itself is probably not a very good predictor of Presidential success. For example, IIRC, Grant was not a very effective President in spite of his military experiences.
There exist ranking of the Presidents. I wonder if there is any clustering of a particular background either at the top of the ranking or at the bottom.
I’d guess that individual attributes factor far more heavily into effectiveness than does their background.
Yes, it can be generalized to say that “Real World” experience is useful. 
Good thing we never elected Strom Thurmond or Phil Gramm to office then.
Phil Gramm: Economics Professor, Texas A&M University (1967-78); Partner, Gramm & Associates (1971-78); Author of several economic texts and articles on subjects ranging from monetary theory and policy to private property to the economics of mineral extraction.
As to the clustering of Presidents by profession, I’d suggest that the majority have been lawyers (or at least had legal training), followed by being commanders in the military.
Whether being governor has any advantages can depend on what state you were governor of. Some states have much stronger legislative branches (VA for one - the governor cannot be re-elected to another term and is limited to making a biennial budget (the most direct way he can change policy)). IIRC, one of the criticisms made against GWB was that he was governor of a state that has a strong legislature/weak governor system.
It is probably worth noting, also, that many Senators come to their seats via the governor’s mansion so they get the experience of both jobs.
It varries from state to state as well. The role of Governor is rather limited in Texas as compared to other states. The Lieutenant Governor actually has more power than the Governor does.
A quick look at some of the men who can generally be said to have been successful as president (making no judgement as to their abilities, just that they got their agenda passed or lead the country through a particularly difficult time):
Lincoln: Attorney, state legislator, member of the House of Representatives. Neither governor nor a senator
FDR: Graduate of law school but doesn’t appear to have practiced much, Assistant Sect’y of Navy, Governor of NY
Thomas Jefferson: Attorney, delegate to Continental Congress, Governor of VA
Theodore Roosevelt: Graduate of law school but doesn’t appear to have practiced much, Governor of NY
Woodrow Wilson: President of Princeton University, Governor of NJ.
James K. Polk: Attorney, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Governor of Tennessee
A seat in the Senate doesn’t seem to have been worth much in retrospect (not counting men who served in the Senate by virtue of their being VP).
Governors have the advantage of experience working within the executive branch of their state government.
Senators, I suppose have a great deal more seniority and experience with national matters of policy.
Did you realize that prior to being elected governor of Texas, George W. had never served public office? Did you realize that the governorship of Texas is largely a figurehead position with little real power or responsibility? In Texas the real position of power is actually the Leiutenent (sp?) Governorship.
Well, rather few Senators have been elected President, when you think about it. No sitting Senator has been elected President since 1960.
Is this a sign that the skills it takes to be an effective Senator are NOT the skills it takes to get elected? Perhaps… or maybe it’s simply that being a Senator is a full-time job, and an incumbent Senator has a hard time campaigning for President.
Dwight Eisenhower (1952), Richard Nixon (1968), Jimmy Carter (1976) and Ronald Reagan (1980) didn’t hold any office when they ran for President, and could spend all their time campaigning. So, we might conclude that it pays to be unemployed!
And if you hold a political job in which you don’t have to do very much (Vice President, or Governor of Texas), that’s almost as good- ask both George Bushes!
Information from here
[ul][li]Lawyer -19 [/li][li]Governor - 17[/li][li]Congressman = 16[/li][li]Senator - 15[/li][li]Vice President - 12[/li][li]Military leader - 10[/li][li]Secretary of State - 5[/li]
[**] counts all over 2 of anything [/ul]
[sup]DDG Haverdasher was not listed[/sup][sub] and neither was womanizer.[/sub]