I’ve asked this in the last couple prez threads, but haven’t been able to find an answer: who was the last person to be elected president without winning the general election in the state in which they last held political office? I haven’t been able to find anyone in recent times that has done this, for the obvious reason that if you can’t convince the voters who are most familiar with your record that you should be president, your not going to convince the rest of the country.
So that rules out Romney, Guliani and Edwards, none of which are likely to get electoral votes from their former employers.
I used to think McCain would have a good chance, but he’s tied himself to the Iraq war, so unless the situation in that country get drastically better in the very near future he’s toast.
Barring a last minute entry by Gore or that Law and Order guy then, I think it will be Hillary or Obama. Personally I’d prefer Hillary (or even better, Richardson), Bush II has made me a little shy of candidates with little experience in holding public office, and I think that even though they’re both one term senators, Hillary’s 20 years of being a very active First Lady (of Arkansas, then the US) gives her a leg up in at least some aspects of executive experience.
But folks with little experience tend to look more electable, and the Dems seem to favor electiablilty over other factors, so my official prediction for prez in 2009 is Obama.
Have you checked Rudy’s polls in NY State as opposed to a NYC poll? As far as I know, he does extremely well in Connecticut and New Jersey and I think he does okay in NY State as a whole.
Does your logic apply to mayors? A mayor winning would be a novelty in and of itself. It is very rare.
In an earlier thread I said that I could see Gore running if, and only if, it looks to him like none of the other Democratic candidates that he could approve of have a chance of winning the general election.
I will add that I think Gore’s credibility is tied to the credibility of the global warming issue. I have seen efforts to discredit his Inconvenient Truth message, both on the basis that what he’s preaching is incorrect, and on the basis that it’s correct but he’s a hypocrite for jetting around the world and using so much energy himself. Whether such accusations have merit or not, they will be stepped up and used against him if he runs.
As for who I think will be the next U.S. President: Never underestimate the power of charisma. I’m tempted to think it counts for more than experience, intelligence, or views on The Issues.
Polls well amonst Republican primary voters you mean, right? I mean win the state in the General Election, not the primaries.
True enough. But greater NYC has more then half the population of the state and I imagine even a larger chunk of its economic activity, so mayor is practically a statewide post.
Of course my theory isn’t an iron law or anything, but even without it I don’t think Mitt or Rudy are very likely to win as their liberal voting records will make it hard to get the base motivated.
Who I’d like is Gore. He’d be a great President. But he’s not running, and he doesn’t appear to want to run.
It’s going to be Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or Giuliani. No other GOPer has a chance besides Rudy.
Not that I think Rudy has that good a chance. Eventually, he’ll actually have to start taking positions on issues beyond what can fit on a postcard; you can only be the Hero of 9/11 for so long.
I’ve never seen more of a Potemkin candidate than Rudy. National security’s his strong suit electorally, and - picky detail - he knows nothing about it. And on the one significant issue of the day that IS a perfect fit for his resume, the US Attorney purge, he’s refused to comment.
He supposedly gave up his senate seat there because he was projected to loose it (no cite here though, so if someone more familiar with NC thinks this is incorrect, I’ll cede the point). So I imagine that the voters there would be even more reluctant to vote him in as Prez. (again, we’re talking about the general election, not the primaries).
Well I mean electable as in what the CW was at the time of the primaries, obviously if they end up loosing they’re ultimately not “electable” in hindsight. Kerry was seen as the electable candidate (as opposed to Dean) in 2004.
In 1916, when Woodrow Wilson was running for reelection, he didn’t win New Jersey, which was the state he was governor of before becoming president. (In 1912, when he first was elected President, he won New Jersey, but failed to win a majority there…he got 41% of the vote.
Ah, but in 1916 his last public office was president, not governor of NJ. By that point New Jersey voters weren’t anymore familiar with his recent record then the general US population.
Your argument could therefore be applied to Rudy. Enough time has passed and Mayor Bloomberg has continued on the positive path started by Rudy for New Yorkers to forget some of what they did not like about Rudy. He left office at the beginning of 2002 due to term limits.
Rudy hasn’t held public office since he was mayor of NYC. Therefore the voters of NY are the ones most familiar with his record, and so in the public eye thier opinion of the man will count more then that of the general population even if some time has elapsed.
Wilson had held another public office after he was governor of NJ, so his most recent performance as a public servant was known as well to the general public as the citizens of his home state.
The same goes for Gore in 2000, he won the popular vote but lost Tennessee (where he had been a senator). But he had been VP during the intervening period, so he doesn’t break the rule either.
Of course its just a theory, but I haven’t found an exception yet. Bush, Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, Roosevelt, Wilson and Coolidge all held a statewide office before being elected prez, and all carried thier states during thier first term. It’s not a huge sample size (I haven’t checked elections before Wilson yet), but its large enough to be suggestive.
By your previous argument, Coolidge never did, either - he had been elected VP in 1920 and serving either as VP or President before he won his first term. Perhaps you mean Harding?
Woops, yea you’re right. Cooldige was VP before becoming prez, Harding was a senator from Ohio and was then elected from that office to president (carrying Ohio in that election.)
It’s much easier to say who WON’T get it than who will get it.
It will most assuredly not be Rudy. So many skeletons between divorces and his buddy being a crook. Not to mention he’s testy and doesn’t listen to others. If he can’t bring himself to meet with the Manhattan borough president while mayor, why does anyone think he’d make a good leader? The 9/10/01 Rudy was a stinker and not generally liked. Only because of 9/11 are we even talking about him.
It will not be McCain. He’s floundering and desperate. That silly walk through Baghdad will be the “I was against it before I was for it” moment for him.
It will not be Romney. The religious right is not going to elect a Mormon. Simple as that. Plus he cannot differentiate himself from Bush regarding Iraq.
My pick for the nomination: Fred Thompson. He has gravitas, the right will trust him. If he wants it, it’s his for the taking. The GOP is like a shopper looking though a bin of dried corn cobs, trying to pick one for dinner. That juicy one that is still in the back is the one they want.
It will not be Hillary. Her support is a mile wide and an inch deep. People are looking for any excuse not to vote for her. Iraq is her albatross, by the time Iowa rolls around, it will haunt her big time.
It will not be Edwards. The right wing smear machine is going to get him if nominated. They’re trying to portray trial lawyers as the mother of all evil and too many people buy it.
It will not be Richardson. There is some whispering about possible lechery on his part and a lot of Dems privately hope he doesn’t get high enough for this to come out.
It could be Obama. By default, everyone else has a weakness or deadly flaw. It could be Gore, if he gets in. If he wants it, it’s his.
I say it’s Thompson v Gore in 2008. A battle of two literal heavyweights.
Also a battle of two people who aren’t running. I’d be suprised if one jumps in at this point (and Gore really seems disinterested, don’t know about Thompson), two seems streaching it.
