Will a sitting senator be elected President in 2008?

[© Tweed the Younger]

It hasn't happened since 1960, but seems pretty likely with frontrunners Clinton, Obama, and McCain all being sitting senators.

[Mr. Morden]

Obviously, it could go either way.  But I'd say there's a >50% chance of it happening, since I think Clinton and Obama are the overwhelming favorites for the Dem. nomination, and McCain has an OK chance at the GOP nomination.

Every president elected since 1960 has been either the incumbent president, a current or former VP, or a current or former governor.  There's an *excellent* chance that the 2008 winner will not fall into one of those categories.

[opebo]

No, and none will be the nominee of a party (Gore V. Thompson).

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

No. 

Liberal northeastern senators don't win presidential elections, unless they run on a platform of a strong national defense and manage to be even more militaristic and gun-ho than their opponents.  (JFK)

For 2008, its either going to be a former mayor or a former governor.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm not sure, but I'm pretty confident that a current or former Senator will win.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Every president elected since 1960 has been either the incumbent president, a current or former VP, or a current or former governor.  There's an *excellent* chance that the 2008 winner will not fall into one of those categories.

Let's break it down but thinking of every person who has a legit shot at the nomination (my percentages):

Dems:
Clinton (Sitting senator) 50%
Obama (Sitting Senator) 20%
Edwards (Fmr. Senator) 20%
Richardson (Sitting Gov) 10%

Reps:
Thompson (Fmr. Sen.) 50%
Romney (Fmr. Gov.) 20%
Giuliani (Fmr. Mayor) 10%
McCain (Sitting Senator) 10%
Huckabee (Fmr. Gov.) 5%
Brownback (Sitting Sen.) 5%

So I say about a 45% chance a sitting senator gets the nod, but I give Obama 0 shot in a general and Hillary very low as well as McCain.  I think the chance that a sitting senator is elected president in 2008 is about 10%

[WalterMitty]

yes. chris dodd.

[Speed of Sound]

Theres a majority chance the Dems win in 08, and a majority chance a sitting senator wins the Dem. Therefore, there is a very good chance that a sitting senator wins in 2008.

[Harry]

Every president elected since 1960 has been either the incumbent president, a current or former VP, or a current or former governor.  There's an *excellent* chance that the 2008 winner will not fall into one of those categories.

Let's break it down but thinking of every person who has a legit shot at the nomination (my percentages):

Dems:
Clinton (Sitting senator) 50%
Obama (Sitting Senator) 20%
Edwards (Fmr. Senator) 20%
Richardson (Sitting Gov) 10%

Reps:
Thompson (Fmr. Sen.) 50%
Romney (Fmr. Gov.) 20%
Giuliani (Fmr. Mayor) 10%
McCain (Sitting Senator) 10%
Huckabee (Fmr. Gov.) 5%
Brownback (Sitting Sen.) 5%

So I say about a 45% chance a sitting senator gets the nod, but I give Obama 0 shot in a general and Hillary very low as well as McCain.  I think the chance that a sitting senator is elected president in 2008 is about 10%

you forgot Biden!  He has some shot at the nomination too, and would probably fare well in the general.

[Pictor Ignotus]

No, and none will be the nominee of a party (Gore V. Thompson).

[© Tweed the Younger]

If McCain is nominated would he pull a Bob Dole and resign the senate to make an all-or-nothing run at the presidency?  I know Arizona has a Democratic governor but I seem to remember they have a law requring their governor to appoint someone of the same party.  If no such law exists (which is possible, my memory is faint here) then it probably wouldn't happen.

[Mr. Morden]

I doubt McCain would do that.  I think the only reason Dole did it is because he couldn't effectively lead the Senate and run for president at the same time, and he didn't want to go back to being a backbencher.

[Sensei]

I'm sure Mike Gravel owns a chair.

[BushKenya]

There's a 50-50 shot really.  Though, I chose no, based on history really.

I think Edwards has the best shot of the Democrats, but I have a funny feeling that we'll have a moderate Republican president for 2009-2012 despite the Iraq war and of the ones with a best shot, I think it will be someone America has never had before, either a former Mayor who has never held anything "higher", or a former Mormon governor.

[Stranger in a strange land]

No. 

Liberal northeastern senators don't win presidential elections, unless they run on a platform of a strong national defense and manage to be even more militaristic and gun-ho than their opponents.  (JFK)

please explain why the american people will want four more years of rule by warmongering reactionaries. your statement would have been dead-on in 2004, but the Iraq War has failed so catastrophically and Bush has failed so dismally as a leader that I don't think the dynamic you described will apply in 2008.

also, the liberal northeastern senators who lost in the past lost because they were dreadful candidates, not so much because of their views.

[agcatter]

You live in Texas and honestly think the views of McGovern, Mondale, and Kerry had nothing to do with their loss.  Yep, they just lost because they ran "bad campaigns".

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

No. 

Liberal northeastern senators don't win presidential elections, unless they run on a platform of a strong national defense and manage to be even more militaristic and gun-ho than their opponents.  (JFK)

please explain why the american people will want four more years of rule by warmongering reactionaries. your statement would have been dead-on in 2004, but the Iraq War has failed so catastrophically and Bush has failed so dismally as a leader that I don't think the dynamic you described will apply in 2008.

also, the liberal northeastern senators who lost in the past lost because they were dreadful candidates, not so much because of their views.

Because ever since 1968, the Democratic Party has an inexplicable tendency to nominate the most unbelievably idiotic candidates known to man.  Just one look at the parade of clowns Hillary, Obama, and Edwards is all that needs to be said in why Dems have a poor track record in winning the White House.  Christ, you Dems might as well just nominate Al Sharpton

*sigh*  Oh well, try again in 2012 with a moderate, sane, centrist Dem like Ed Rendell or Evan Bayh and maybe you'll succeed in ousting President Romney if you're lucky

oh, and sorry about the Bill Owens slip, I thought the Dems won the Colorado governor's office in 2006

[Tender Branson]

*sigh*  Oh well, try again in 2012 with a moderate, sane, centrist Dem like Ed Rendell, Evan Bayh, or Bill Owens and maybe you'll succeed in ousting President Romney if you're lucky

*sigh*

"William Forrester "Bill" Owens (born 22 October 1950) is an American politician and a member of the Republican Party. He was the 40th Governor of Colorado. He did not seek reelection in 2006 due to term limits."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Owens

[Stranger in a strange land]

You live in Texas and honestly think the views of McGovern, Mondale, and Kerry had nothing to do with their loss.  Yep, they just lost because they ran "bad campaigns".

McGovern had some pretty whacky views I admit. Kerry and Mondale lost because they ran terrible  campaigns and were terrible candidates. Actually Mondale was a sacrificial lamb who was going to lose anyway. I honestly don't believe any democrat could have beaten Reagan in 1984.

Texas is not represenative of the rest of the US.

Kerry actually tried to out-warmonger Bush by saying he would have voted for the war knowing that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction or links to al-qaeda. I don't think kerry actually believed this, but it was only one of his 14 different positions on Iraq...well i think u all get my point. Kerry ran away from his views, talked in a way which didn't make sense to the average person, and was completely afraid to go after Bush on the war, which certainly didn't help him.

[BushKenya]

You live in Texas and honestly think the views of McGovern, Mondale, and Kerry had nothing to do with their loss.  Yep, they just lost because they ran "bad campaigns".

McGovern had some pretty whacky views I admit. Kerry and Mondale lost because they ran terrible  campaigns and were terrible candidates. Actually Mondale was a sacrificial lamb who was going to lose anyway. I honestly don't believe any democrat could have beaten Reagan in 1984.

Texas is not represenative of the rest of the US.

Kerry actually tried to out-warmonger Bush by saying he would have voted for the war knowing that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction or links to al-qaeda. I don't think kerry actually believed this, but it was only one of his 14 different positions on Iraq...well i think u all get my point. Kerry ran away from his views, talked in a way which didn't make sense to the average person, and was completely afraid to go after Bush on the war, which certainly didn't help him.

I agree with you, strangeland.  I voted for John Kerry because I thought we needed a fresh face in Iraq and the War on Terror, but he did run away from his views, and refused to stand up to Bush after the Swift Boat attacks and failed to stand up to him on an already unpopular war.  It kind of makes me glad that President Bush did win in 2004, considering that if John Kerry failed to stand up to Bush, would he have the guts and tenacity to stand up to the terrorists, or would he back down and become the UN and EU's puppet?

[Tender Branson]

*sigh*  Oh well, try again in 2012 with a moderate, sane, centrist Dem like Ed Rendell or Evan Bayh and maybe you'll succeed in ousting President Romney if you're lucky

oh, and sorry about the Bill Owens slip, I thought the Dems won the Colorado governor's office in 2006

They did ...