Three current United States Senators - Clinton, Obama, and McCain - have a shot at being elected President of the United States later this year. Obama or Clinton will most likely be the nominee of the Democratic party.

Is history against them? While fifteen US Senators have become President, only two - Harding and Kennedy - moved directly from their Senate offices to the Oval Office.

Is being a Washington insider - especially being a current Senator - a roadblock to the Presidency?

Reference List

Actually it would appear a person has a better chance of being a Governor then getting elected President. Five of the last six Presidents elected, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton & George W. Bush had served as Governor of their respective states.

Currently of the candidates still running, Mitt Romney & Mike Huckabee, both Republican, show the title of Governor on their resume.

Isn't there something wrong with the idea that because something hasn't happened in the past, at least not often, that it probably won't happen in the future? I think that's a republican idea. If it hasn't happened before, it shouldn't be done at all!

Most people would agree that at least 3 of of those presidencies were disasters.

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:
I think that's a republican idea. If it hasn't happened before, it shouldn't be done at all!

Now, frank, that was funny!

The last time it happened, the nation elected a young, energetic visionary as President...like Obama? I think the road has suddenly become more bumpy for him; Clinton dragged him down into the mud this week, and he plays better on a higher plane. The country's best-researched and most reliable Mock Convention just picked Hillary. What happens in South Carolina today is more important than you may think.

Senators are Washington "insiders." Do the people prefer an outsider? Are governors, who have been chief executives, better prepared for the demands of being President?

DG, which 3 were disasters?

According to most polls, the current administration is a disaster in the making. Most people see Jimmy Carter's term as a disastrous one for the US. We'll have to differ on the third choice.

When you said "most people" I thought three were clear. Carter, unfortunately, was clear - I liked the man but the Georgia mafia couldn't run the country. I don't know how history will treat Bush but you could well be right.

If there is a third in the bunch it would likely be partisan. For every bad thing that happened under the others, there are strong counteractive positives. IMHO.