Notice that nowhere on that list is there a governor vs. senator matchup (or mayor vs. senator). In each of the five losses for senator-candidates, they were running against an incumbent president.

Of course governors have shown quite capable of unseating presidents or defeating vice-presidents, but 2008 will likely be a previously unseen matchup, experience-wise. If it's mayor vs. senator, it's a completely new ballgame.

Don't mean to upset your optimism or anything. ;)

I've been thinking of the new Governor of Louisiana in this respect. If he had/has aspirations it makes sense for him to leave DC and govern a state.

"It's a bad idea to ignore history." -- DJ Drummond

It's an even worse idea to draw strong conclusions from a clearly inadequate amount of data.

Speaking of Mayor vs. Senator. If it's Clinton, then it's really Mayor vs. First Lady.

Quite unprecedented.

No Synova, Senator Clinton. This is because she is currently a Senator, and because she has made such emphasis on her time as Senator, apparently trying to bury her escapades as the "co-President".

And Herman, if you have a more relevant data set for this characteristic, why don't you present it? And even for the short set, 1 for 6 is not good odds for future efforts no matter how you try to spin it.

Actually, I believe Senator McGovern was from South Dakota.

i think we'll see Jindal run for Pres in 2012 or 2016 depending on who wins next year. from everything i have seen he will be a truly formidable opponent. especially if he is able to do anything constructive in Louisiana, as compared to how that state fared under democrat control.

Brian,

Yes, he was the most popular president to serve between 1992 and 1999.

DJ, I always knew the republicans would not lose. I always knew Hillary would be the candidate. She cannot win the general election. ww

DJ:

Sorry, DJ, but I don't agree. I think that the winner will be a Democrat and that Democrat will be Senator Clinton.

RE: "Republicans in general will put the country ahead of everything else, and the voters know this."
I think that the voters still feel betrayed by the GOP in general and President Bush in particular. No matter how badly the Democrats do in the next year, there will still be a knee-jerk reaction against the GOP in 2008. They will remember who started an unpopular war, they don't feel good about the economy, they will remember the corruption, and the other party will be offering them lots of "free" programs.

RE: "Democrats always end up going to extremes, having abandoned the center to the degree that they cannot find it, even when they most need it.'
I don't think so because the campaign will be run by the Clintons, two people who understand more about American politics than anyone else in the world. They will stay on message. The campaign will be carefully planned and well executed. She will continue to avoid answering questions and revealing what she plans to do. The public will not require her to tell them what she really plans to do. (And it will be all lies, anyway.) The MSM will continue to let her avoid answering tough questions; gloss over her personal and professional failures; and trash her GOP opponent.

RE: Senator v. whatever
First of all, the data doesn't accurately describe the race. Hitlary doesn't have the executive experience necessary, but the public doesn't appear to care and the MSM won't call attention to the fact. She is part of an American political dynasty and history in the making. Also, it is too little data, and nothing from before about 1980 is valid because the country is very different and the voters' expectations and prejudices are very different.

But here's the really big difference: if Clinton or Senator Obama get the nomination, there will be a huge number of new voters coming to the polls to vote for them. People who have rarely (if ever) voted will come to the pools in huge numbers to "make history" by electing a woman or a black man President.

Add to that the millions of illegal immigrants who will see this as their chance to get amnesty and a fast-track to citizenship, the the GOP candidate won't stand a chance.

The only thing working against the Democrats is the desire for split government. Democrats stand to make gains in the House and the Senate. Many Americans will not like turning over total power to Hitlary. But that won't be enough to stop the flood.

I've said all along the Dems do not have a viable candidate. Actually the guy who would have the best chance is Joe Biden.

kevino,

There's something frighteningly prophetic about referring to Hillary and the Democrats as "the flood".

Add to that the millions of illegal immigrants who will see this as their chance to get amnesty and a fast-track to citizenship, the the GOP candidate won't stand a chance.

I don't even need to comment...

Kevino, that entire post is emotion and shenanigans. Democrat trade marks.

The other problem with DJ's post is that Thompson is holding a strong second behind Giuliani.

Thompson's second is national and is actually very weak (McCain and Thompson are statistically tied). He is far behind in Iowa and NH; his only strong polling is in South Carolina.

Kevino, interesting take, if based on a great deal of wishful thinking.

First off, do I need to remind you that Ms. Clinton has very high negatives, even in some Democratic power centers?

Second, assuming there will be a "knee-jerk reaction" in 2008 misses the fact that you got it in 2006. Historically, the voters most often choose to match a President of one party against a controlling Congress of the other. Since it is unlikely the Democrats will lose Congress in 2008, any "knee-jerK' reaction is, historically, more likely to cost the Democrats' nominee.

Next, no, Hillary Clinton definitely does NOT understand American politics as well as she thinks, as evidenced by her continued struggles to get a clear message out which is popular. She's made statements then backtracked, she brags about her record then refuses to discuss it. I could go on, but the point is that Senator Clinton is far from ready for the main event.

Next, need I remind you that the American public, overwhelmingly, opposes the idea of a "dynasty"? Some experts have alraedy said this is why Jeb Bush is not running in 2008, and in that context you need to be aware that a sizable and growing number of people are put off by the notion of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Too elitist, you see.

And what "new voters" do you see, exactly? Howard Dean believed the Internet would sweep him to the nomination, but alas no. Kerry believed millions of young people would decide to become new voters for him, but again he was wrong. Every time someone looks at the demographics, them throws away what they say because they think some slick trick will make the difference, they end up being very wrong.

As for the illegals, have you noticed that Hillary is slowly backing away from her support for the New York Driver License con? It's been slow building, but if there is a death blow to the Democratic nominee, it's their clearly unethical gaming of Border Security for political gain. Waves of illegals are NOT going to suddenly appear across the nation and vote for Hillary, but if she does not wise up and recognize the fury building on that isuse, Hillary might have a hard time taking Arkansas, let alone the White House.

THe reaction to the flood of illegals might be enough to invalidate sufficient states to actually prevent Hillary from winning. The problem with Hillary is that she tends to go far enough overboard that people cannot continue to blind themselves. Look what happened to HillaryCare, had she not gone overboard, she might have fooled enough people to get it passed.

Add to that the millions of illegal immigrants who will see this as their chance to get amnesty and a fast-track to citizenship, the the GOP candidate won't stand a chance.

And the fact that the Democrats are counting on a group of lawbreakers as a constituency says something about their principles. What about their cries of voter fraud? Oh, yeah. Never mind.

Actually, if you go further back, it gets much worse for Senators as Presidential candidates. Harding and Kennedy are the only two to ever win it without being VP first. And VP's went through a long stretch of it truly being a dead-end job where the death of the President was the only way they moved up. Papa Bush was a rare exception. Governors and Generals have been the overwhelming favorites of the electorate. Of course, today's Generals are a dime a dozen thanks to rank inflation. Plus, the modern Democratic Party works hard to make sure the US loses wars and tarnish any successful commanders, so it'll be a while before we see a General again.

Yes, he was the most popular president to serve between 1992 and 1999.

If that is truly all you see, then your Clinton-hatred is causing you to ignore reality.

If that is truly all you see, then your Clinton-hatred is causing you to ignore reality.

Just curious, Brian. Do you characterize Reagan as being popular?

How do these play out when neither party has a candidate who is not a sitting President?
When neither party has a candidate who is not a sitting Vice-President or former Vice-President?
Yes is has happened a few times...
However it has been awhile right?
Wide open on both sides...

If the race came down to a Mayor v. a Senator, I would not count out Rudy. A mayor's role is exectuive in its nature. And considering Rudy was the mayor of one of the largest cities in the world, his track record as an executive would overshadow anything of substance the senators in this race could put forward.

If the Dems were smart, they would throw their support behind Bill Richardson. As an hispanic governor from the southwest, with a pretty good track record of execuitve experience/credentials, he could be a formidable candidate with the right apparatus behind him.

But alas, the Dems are not smart. The front runners are:

A former first lady who grew up in Illinois, was wife of the governor of Arkansas, but who had to move to the most liberal city in the country to get elected senator to replace a retiring Democrat senator, got all the power seats on senate commissions because her husband controlled the purse strings, but is still a policy novice after being in the senate for 6 years, equivocates daily on the issue of the war; who cannot answer an elementary question given by a liberal news personality; who has been caught using plants in town hall meetings to ask her favorable questions, and who despite the biggest effort in history by the media to increase her exposure and candidacy... cries she is being picked on when the other Dem candidates call her out for her failure to answer the aforementioned elementary question by said liberal news personality

A senator from Illinois who while being touted as the Second Coming, was defeated in a try at Congress 2 years earlier and who became the de facto candidate to beat when the Republican front runner in the senate race became embroiled in a sex scandal conerning his wife?; has ZERO policy experience, ZERO legislative experience as a senator, and who has basically been running a presidential campaign since the day he took office as a senator in January of '05

A former senator from North Carolina who campaigns as a spokesman for the poor, but who lives like a king, created a non-profit to fight poverty, but only used it as a campaign slush fund, who got elected as senator because he outspent his opponent, , but who was also polling in the mid-20% as a senator WHEN HE WAS CAMPAIGNING FOR VP IN '04, and who basically ran for president to increase his profile because he knew he was not going to be re-elected as a senator, who voted for the war because his campaign advisor told him to, but questions the integrity of Bush; his neighbors currently dislike him... although most of them are among the poor he claims to represent; and whose wife, while sick with inoperable cancer, has more heart and gonads than he could hope to have;

senators who know they will not get elected, but who are auditioning for high level cabinet seats

a congressman who sees UFOs and who will get re-elected in spite of it

a man with extensive executive experience as a governor and diplomat, but who has no personality, and no apparatus to distibuish him from the pack of amatuers, hacks, re-treads, and prop jobs

Nogo appears to have forgotten that Obama and Hillary are running against President George W. Bush. They just can't get enough of Dubya, I reckon.

Just curious, Brian. Do you characterize Reagan as being popular?

Of course, he's very popular. It's not a matter of my "characterizing" him as such. It's a fact, without a doubt.

It would be bizarre for someone to deny that. Just as it would be to deny the same of Clinton.

Brian, if Bubba was "popular", how come he never got a majority victory in either of his two elections? Seems like, if you're going to call Bill Clinton "popular", you're gonna have to man up and call W popular, seeing as his first election took a higher popular % than Clinton's first election, and his re-election took a clear majority while ol' Bubs never made it there.

(Waits to see how long until Brian tries to redefine "popular" to suit his tilt)

I agree almost word for word with DJ, just as Joe Biden did with Neil Kinnock.

Yes, W got more votes, and a higher percentage of votes, than Bubba. Bubba never got above low 40's.

Last Democrat to do so was Carter in 1977--30 years ago--how pathetic for you Dims.

By this measure, the Democrats' best candidate would be Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico.

But his candidacy is not going anywhere because Hillary sucks all the oxygen out of the room. He is also having a problem figuring out a message for himself.

In general, a President who's done a good job wins re-election. After that.

Generals > Governors > Veeps > Senators

Note that the curve correlates roughly with executive experience. (And that the rankings are rough; charismatic Senator Kennedy beats VP Nixon, for instance).

Chaney for president in 08...Makes more sense that any of the democrats.

Why in the hell wouldn't anyone run against Bush? it should be Bush all day everyday. The 2 leading Republicans are just Bush all over again. Every other word out of the Dem nominees mouth should be Bush and the war. The election is probably going to about war - and like it or not the Republicans own it. They may not be factually accurate because of the votes to go but I don't see it making any difference.

Guiliani and Romney have incredible weaknesses - they make Kerry look pathetic when it comes to the famous "was he for it before he was against it" question. I don't think either one knows what he believes in or has the courage to stand by whatever it is. I think your real hope is MCcain - who, by the way, I think would make a good president.

Scrapiron, if he was healthier I'd be for that. Dick Cheney is a really sharp guy, and a good candidate were it not for the 8 year campaign of lies and whacky conspiracy nut nonsense that the Democrats and Left have made against him.

You forgot nutcase vs nutcase (Kucinich and Paul). Would Kucinich's 'green people', as you called them, be considered illegal aliens? Would they get a 'green card'? Ok, enough silliness for me.