Senators do run for President more often than governors, but the governors have a better track record for getting elected.
Going back to the 1960 election, which was the last time (before 2008) when a sitting senator was elected:
• there have been 8 Senators as their party’s nominee (Kennedy, Goldwater, Humphrey, McGovern, Dole, Kerry, Obama and McCain).
• two of them have been elected (Kennedy and Obama - although in 2008 it was certain that a senator would be elected and a senator would be defeated, since both nominees were Senators).
• there have been six governors/former governors nominated during that same time (Carter, Reagan, Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Bush II, Romney).
• four of them have been elected (Carter, Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Bush II).
Now, it’s a small sample size, but based on the past 14 presidential elections, more Senators have got the nominations, but governors have a better chance of getting elected.
It’s also significant that during this period, no Senator nominee has defeated an incumbent President, although four have tried (Goldwater, McGovern, Dole, Kerry).
By contrast, three governors (Carter, Reagan and Clinton) have defeated incumbent presidents.
The bolded part is my guess too. Jimmy Carter may have been “Jimmy Who?” before the Iowa caucus, but he spent a lot of time working in the background beforehand, making connections and especially working the party apparatus; and “former governor” probably opened a lot more backroom doors than “former mayor” would. Governors like senators work on the country-wide stage, meet other influential party people, etc. A mayor would be much more limited in who they meet, how wide their travel and influence go, etc. Never underestimate the value of party support across the country.
Basically, short answer, because mayors are less important.
It’s not unusual for former mayors to run for their party’s nomination but for whatever reason they don’t win. This time around, we had Bernie Sanders (former Burlington Mayor) and Martin O’Malley (former Baltimore mayor), George Pataki (former mayor of Peeskill, NY), and Lincoln Chafee (former mayor of Warwick, RI). In recent memory, we had Dennis Kucinich (former Cleveland Mayor).
As far as I know the most recent former mayor at the top of a national ticket was Hubert Humphrey in 1968. He had been mayor of Minneapolis 20 years earlier.
I think 1812 was the last presidential election in which a major candidate was an incumbent mayor: DeWitt Clinton, mayor of New York City. Obviously he lost.
This may be true, but smiling bandit said “candidates.” Not successful candidates. You can’t change the comment retroactively.
Again, the statement I was responding to read “most states have a similar political structure as the U.S. as a whole: legislature, executive, judicial, and often similar contests between right and left, constitutional issues, etc. Cities don’t;” That’s not just facile. It’s dead wrong. I’m not qualified to do a detailed analysis of the depth and scope of every state and city governmental structure - though I’ll bet you aren’t either - but I’d say that in all likelihood the two charts overlap significantly, with the largest cities well more complex than the smallest states.
Whatever the limitations of mayors as presidential candidates are - and they are real - those do not make your statements any more correct. They’re wrong in and of themselves.
I believe you talked about Senators running - which they do. I was talking about actually getting into office, which is a very different ballgame.
So you admit having no knowledge of this area of politics at all, and then insist that I must not either because I don’t agree with you?
City governments can, and very frequently do, have very different structures than state governments. Some have power really vested in a council, others in the executive. Sometimes the executive is split. They are usually much smaller than state bodies, almost almost always unicameral, often heavily dominated by one political party, and are extremely circumscribed by state laws, which are always superior in the United States.
Big cities may be big, but only the biggest cities are larger than the smallest states. And in terms of complexity, state governments are probably the more complicated of the two, with many more departments and concerns than municipal governments. Which again, is because states in America are superior to the city governments and are designed to have those responsibilities. That said, I did not advance the complexity argument and don’t like to compare things that manner, because it’s not a readily quantifiable measurement. What I can say is that, even in the extreme example of New York City, I can find no city governments in the United States with more employees than the state government.
You could maybe say that New York City is more complex than Rhode Island, but even that’s a pretty feeble argument, because it pretends that I think that any governorship is going to be a good preparation for the presidency. I don’t, and I don’t believe that the public would casually accept that argument. There’s a manifest difference between being governor of California or Texas when contrasted with, say Wyoming or Alaska ( ). DrDeth,
There’s a pretty big difference between a high executive office and being Secretary of State. Sure, it’s a high office in the Executive Branch, but there’s a world of difference between advising a leader and carrying out his or her policy than being the elected leader and making that policy.
Sure, but the Secretary of State does have certain executive powers. And, I think it’s far more executive experience than as you mentioned- Governor of Wyoming or Alaska.
No. You did no such thing. Read your own post #17. And of course I said nothing about Senators until I responded to your ludicrously ahistorical statement “It’s worth noting that traditionally in U.S. politics, Presidential candidates are either governors or generals.”
The rest of what you say here is more of “what I wished I had said instead of what I really did.” And equally dismissible.
I double-checked my numbers and the history of several Presidents, and I believe I am correct. At one point, it was more common for Senators to become presidents, but that has been significantly less common than those with backgrounds as governors. While military commanders don’t run as often, they have a fairly high success rate in campaigns when they do.
I was incorrect and overly restrictive in specifically referring to Generals, however. Many presidents were officers but not generals, obviously including those who were naval officers.
Are you including independent agencies like the MTA and the public universities in those numbers? Because I tried looking, and couldn’t find a number above 200K that the governor of NYS has control of , while found a workforce profile that said NYC had 304K full time employees in 2012 including 118K FT at the Department of Education. Although that might have thrown you off- in most places a separately elected school board runs the schools, but not in NYC.
Believe it or not, Chicago technically has a “weak mayor” charter in which the mayor has little official power. But the city’s political culture in recent memory has been one in which mayors assume a lot of power through either a party machine or appointing quite a few of the sitting aldermen. The mayors who haven’t been able to assume that kind of informal control have not been very effective or memorable.
I am not so sure. There is one fundamental difference between Governor and Mayor-one is the executive leader of a sovereign entity and one is not. To an average US citizen that may not look like much, but it is in practice a big deal. A city, or any government entity inside a state is the creation of the state. Any power the city has, the state can take away or modify at will. The Governor has inherent powers that no one can take away (absent constitutional amendments). Depending on the state and the city, this power differential may be large or small, but it exists. And every local government knows it. A Governor works with the legislature to get new things done. A city goes to the legislature and asks for the power to get new things done. That difference is significant.
That is not true in all cases. Many (most?) states provide for charter municipalities or counties, which have inherent police powers like the state itself, and whose charters can usually only be withdrawn by majority vote of the city/county residents.
But really, the amount of executive power wielded by a mayor has little to do with it. Candidates for POTUS are only marginally judged by their experience. That’s why governors frequently win nominations - and elections - despite having no foreign policy experience.
Mayors just aren’t as famous as holders of statewide or national office. Can you name the mayor of a city other than New York and Chicago?
I’m sorry, but I can’t fathom this. How in the world is it significant? How is it even meaningful? Senators are not executives of any kind and they can not only run for president they can be successful presidents. Cabinet members can run for president and have served as president and their executive powers are limited just as much as mayors.
Mostly though, no voter in the country would spend even one second considering this “difference.” When Michael Bloomberg considered running did this come up at any time from anyone? Certainly not in my memory.
Certainly I agree with your point about Senators running with inherent executive experience. My point is limited to Mayors. In my experience local mayors accomplish new things because the legislature lets them. Governors accomplish new things because that is part of the job. Both pave the roads and get credit/blame for that executive function, but usually a only Governor has the ability to initiate something new.
When the news articles are written, people will hear about the Governor, while the Mayor will get credit for implementing a new law passed by the legislature.
And certainly city charters specify how cities operate, I am not knowledgable on the details of how independent that makes the cities.
City managers are essential here in the northeast, where the primary political division is the town and each one has to elect a complete slate of administrators from the local population. It’s hard to get good candidates in small towns, and the Town Council (and Boards of Ed) tend to change mix every election, so having a stable, experienced manager to keep things running is not an option.
My perception is that even large cities that have a Manager use it just like that - Mayor and Councilmen or Selectmen or Reps or whatever define policy, and the Manager and his office keep the machinery running (in the benign sense, not the political one). The small city I moved from did it that way from incorporation around 1998 and while the elected officials were the usual California semi-pros, the experienced manager that’s held the post since inception has made it all work.
But 1000 more times on that blackboard that “gummint ain’t bidness.”
).