Democratic Governors for President?

Governors have won, by my count, seven of the last eight elections. The other was won by a sitting vice president (over a technocratic governor from a, shall we say, politically notorious state), and the one disputed election was between a governor and a sitting vice president. Given that we won't be running a sitting vice president in 2008, should we nominate a governor? One not from MA (the other side can do that)?

And who might that governor be? (As a corollary, should Mark Warner really run for Senate in 2006? And is he charismatically challenged?)

(I assume the standard reasons given for the Governor's Advantage (TM) are familiar enough around here-- executive experience, no congressional voting record, "outsider" image, local touch-- that a parenthetical mention will do.)

•  Bill Richardson in 2008

  Bill Richardson is the full package with congressional, foreign policy and cabinet experience, and as a plus he just happens to be Hispanic.  He is doing a great job in New Mexico.  On the tube he comes across as a people person, definitely non-elitist and with a sense of humor.  I like Mark Warner, but he doesn't have all the experience of Richardson and I don't think his persona is that strong.  If he gets in the Senate, he might make a great VP.  I don't think Edwards has the heft for #1.  Hillary, bless her, would be a disaster for the ticket.  It would be more like 1988 and possibly 1972 or 1984.  Despite all of the crying in the beer, we have never come out of an election loss in such great shape.  I lived through the one state campaigns and the 252 electoral votes look huge to me.  I know we lost and I don't revel in the consolation prize, but, people, just think what a great base we can start from if we keep our cool.  We have to keep working on building party and getting control of the legislatures for 2012 new districts.  Also the article someone posted on the Secretaries of State we need to take out are great.  We need to recruit some serious name politicians for those important offices.

  by texdem04 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:43:42 PM PDT

  •  Hallelujah!!!

    As long as he can make his presence felt in a positve way between now and 2008.

    by Muboshgu on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:55:17 PM PDT

  •  You are saying lots of good things, but I wonder..

    what are the weaknesses of Richardson. Was not he somehow involved with the Monicagate? How much would that hurt him?

    Please, somebody enlighten me.

    After seeing the evil Republican machinery crush a multi-medal award War hero (read: Kerry) I think they can indict even God.

    We should find the cleanest, charismatic, smart candidate, or start working on some serious pre-spin.

    As for Richardson, I think he would sweep with the Latino vote from its roots and would make it permanent part of the Democratic constituency.

    I would love that to happen.
    

    by hidalgo on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 08:34:34 PM PDT

    •  Not Richardson

      Richardson was in congress for a long time. Further he has skeletons. There is the thing with the Chinese spy and there are reported sexual skeletons as well. Richardson will not be running.

      by Gracchi on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:03:06 PM PDT

•  Govs

  Not a full list, but some obvious ones would be

  1. Richardson of NM (though he does have a congressional record)

  2. Napolitano of AZ (though she needs to win re-election to have a real shot)

  3. Sibelius of KS (ditto)

  4. Vilsack of IA (though he needs to grow some charisma)

  Napolitano is somebody I'm curious to watch.  A female candidate from Arizona sounds like a promising match to me.  Richardson is, I think, a dull presence on TV, though I've been told he's quite exciting in person.

  There's some others who aren't really strong presidential material, I don't think, but you never know...

  Mike Easley of NC
  Phil Bredesen of TN (popular but very dull)
  Bob Wise of WV

  There's been talk of Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, but I find that very hard to believe.  In fact, I expect at least a couple of strong Democrats to try to beat him in the gubernatorial primary in 2006.  He's neither very bright nor an exceptionally good campaigner.  He is a very effective backroom politician.

  If the Arnold amendment passed, Jenny Granholm of Michigan would be a strong candidate.  But she's born in Canada, so right now she's irrelevant.

  As for Warner, he's got a dilemma, doesn't he?  If he wins the Senate, he's shown his power, but he's also made it hard to run in 2008.  If he doesn't run for the Senate, and he doesn't do well in the 2008 primaries, then he's probably toast as a major candidate.  So what to do?

  Some of the people you mention were former governors--Carter and Reagan--out of office when they ran for Pres.  Which is probably the smartest option, if you can pull it off, since you don't have to worry about trouble at home, like Clinton's ludicrous trip back to Little Rock to execute a retarded man on death row.  

  by GregD on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:49:48 PM PDT

  •  Napolitano would be a great pick

    If she can head off a strong challenge from Congressman J.D. Hayworth, she's gold.

    Another good choice (though maybe a little early at this point): new Montana gov Brian Schweitzer.

    by Nonpartisan on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:54:20 PM PDT

  •  this is totally unfair

    But isn't Napolitano single?  I wonder about electibility there.

    by nhc1978 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:12:05 PM PDT

•  i recon..

  Joe Manchin of West Virginia.. before you laugh, remember where Bill was from..  so far, Joe looks to be a pragmatic centrist with plenty of "good ole boy" sex appeal, he's a tough task of achieving economic recovery in a depressed state ahead, so we'll se how he does.. i do think he's fairly liberal in his social agenda.. the fact that WV voted for Dush, yet elected a dem govn'r by some 20% gives us much hope.. whatever the reasons they went with Bush this time ( i do personally think it was the bloody "security" issue), they're sane enough to consider their economic interest..

  by sputnik1 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:53:39 PM PDT

•  Brad Henry

  well.. if he wins re-election, of course

  by RBH on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:57:17 PM PDT

•  Ed Rendell

  Pennsylvania governor. Gives great sound byte and great interview. Loves the media - was a Hardball regular. As Mayor of Philadelphia, balanced the city budget almost overnight. The city went from six straight years of job losses to six straight years of job gains. The city also increased services. And he did it all while lowering taxes for four straight years. He has also lowered taxes as governor. He may not be the most liberal guy. But he has shown an ability to make touch choices, taking on tough unions when necessary, and he'd get a fair shake from guys like Matthews.

  by Winston Smith on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:15:27 PM PDT

•  Roy Barnes Sucks

  Two previous posts have mentioned former Georgia Governor Barnes as on the short list.   He may have pushed through the bill to get the confederate flag out of the State flag, but damn he's an asshole.  I will personally email Drudge some dirt on him if he gets the position.

  by JenAtlanta on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:25:32 PM PDT

•  Not a Governor but...

  ...imagine Gavin Newsom in 4 or 8 or 12 years. Watch the video of his most recent State of the City speech if you want to get a sense of his potential. It's right there on the same link. He's hoarse from a cold but, again, this guy is only 37 years old.

  If you go centrist on me and worrywart yourself to death about his stance in support of gays and lesbians, stop. Those days are over. It's time to stand up and be bold. It's time to be Democrats again.

  by cvcobb01 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:33:09 PM PDT

•  This may be favoritism...

  and even though he's only a mayor, how about Martin O'Malley of Baltimore? Or should we wait until he defeats Ehrlich triumphantly in the next gubernatorial election here in Maryland?

  by BrianL on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 06:58:14 PM PDT

  •  O'Malley

    he is hot.

    by DaveOinSF on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:09:56 PM PDT

    •  and!

      He plays in a band!

      Honestly, he is wildly popular here in Baltimore, elected mayor by a complete landslide. I really do wonder if a presidential run is in his future, whenever it may be?

      by BrianL on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:29:54 PM PDT

      •  here are some facts I forgot to add.

        http://www.martinomalley.com/

        -Won re-election at 88%.

        -Completely turned around Baltimore's inner harbor.

        -Is actually rejuvinating decrepit slums of Baltimore into proper living areas.
        -Continued violent crime reduction.

        -Conducted 100 targeted and random integrity tests to deter and detect police misconduct and decreased citywide complaints of discourtesy and excessive force by 28% as compared to 2001.

        -Exposed the nationwide backlog of unexamined DNA evidence collected at homicide and rape scenes, reaching exposure on 20/20 and Oprah leading to three grants in the amount of $3,276,000 for the police department's DNA project. Obtained $1M for the State's Attorney to enhance handgun prosecutions on the city's most violent offenders.

        -Passed an unprecedented Hazmat ordinance, setting standards for the city and the chemical industry to ensure that all premises where hazardous materials are stored, dispensed, used or handled are safeguarded with protective measures.

        -This year alone, the Criminal Intelligence Section of the Baltimore Police Department established an international intelligence network, monitored terrorism extremist movements, created a false documents team to investigate immigrants' status in the United States, and developed translation capabilities in 11 foreign languages.

        -Recorded the largest 2-year drop (18% decrease) in drug-related hospital emergency department (ED) visits in the nation, the largest 2-year drop (36% decrease) in heroin-related ED visits in the nation and the second largest 2-year drop (28.8% decrease) in cocaine-related ED visits in the nation.

        -Increased the number of housing inspections performed by nearly ten percent from 111,892 during the first 40 weeks of 2001 to 122,664 during the first 40 weeks of 2002.
        Cleaned and boarded more than 17,000 vacant or abandoned properties and lots since 2000, with 8,500 cleaned and boarded in 2002 alone.

        These are just a few. The more and more I think about it, the more and more I really love ol' Marty.

        And anyone who has this on their homepage is awesome:

        by BrianL on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:38:11 PM PDT

        •  To steal from my own post,

          Kerry had 82% in Baltimore, so O'Malley only ran 6% ahead of the ticket.

          http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/11/8/0619/30980/28#28

          by geekynerd on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:26:30 PM PDT

•  Mark Warner

  Warner is about a 5 on the 10 scale of charisma.  He's dead average.  He's also very smart, very wealthy, and pretty conservative for a Democrat (pro-death penalty, pro-gun enough that the NRA didn't take a position in the gubernatorial election, fiscal conservative which actually is more mainstream for Democrats these days)

  I don't think he's as conservative as Brad Carson, but I think that a chunk of the IL/MI/NY/CA/MA/CT/RI Dems would find him a tough nut to swallow.

  That said I think he can win the Senate seat in Virginia, and once that happens I think that he may be an intriguing candidate in 2012.  I could see a Warner/Obama ticket in 2012 if we don't win the white house in '08.  Obama will still be just a smidge too young to win the white house on his own.

  -Fred

  by FredFred on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:03:38 PM PDT

  •  He also vetoed anti-gay legislation

    that appears to ban ANY contracts between same sex couples. His veto was overridden with the help of some Democrats who think equal rights are optional.
    
    My point being that Warner is not as conservative as he seems.
    1. He worked hard to be neutral enough on guns, so that the NRA wouldn't come after him. That's not the same as being pro-gun.
    2. He's pro-death penalty, but has pushed hard for more DNA testing on death row inmates and worked to change Virginia's overly restrictive evidence laws that limit how late new evidence can be considered.
    3. He's a fiscal conservative that just pushed through a new package of taxes and fees to balance the budget and keep funding essential services.
    
    Warner packages his policies within a conservative structure, but there's a lot for liberals and progressives to like in what he's done. More importantly, he offers lessons in how to pitch the progressive agenda in a conservative state.

    by Hoya90 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:13:09 PM PDT

    •  aoeu

      Are you sure he actually vetoed it?  I know he threatened to do so, but I think he ended up signing it.

      by TealVeal on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:56:10 PM PDT

      •  I'm pretty sure he vetoed it

        But I wasn't aware that it was overridden.  He vetoed it and said that he had people from each of the state's law schools review it and the law was unconstitutional because of the provisions against signing contracts.  He said he was opposed to gay marriage, that we already had a law on the books that opposed gay marriage, and we didn't need this one.

        -Fred

        by FredFred on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:58:54 PM PDT

        •  aoeu

          hmmm...yeah it's probably unconstitutional.  Do you know of any cases against it yet?

          by TealVeal on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 08:15:31 PM PDT

      •  I'm looking at the VA Legis website

        It went into law without Warner's signature. He recommended that they delete the provisions that voided all contracts between same sex couples. The legislature rejected Warner's recommendation and passed the law with a veto-proof margin.

        by Hoya90 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:22:45 AM PDT

    •  Rove would skewer him

      as a tax-raising liberal, even though he's really a fiscally conservative businessman who was dealt a crap hand by Jim Gilmore who allowed the Enronization of the transportation budget.  That bird won't fly in the state of Virginia - we know that Gilmore screwed us.  But on a national stage the Democrats would have to go on the offensive about how he got the budget balanced after it was billions out of whack and be aggressive about jumping down anyone's throat who tries to call Warner a tax-raising liberal.  Problem is that I don't see any Democrats who are willing to go for the jugular in advertisements the way that Republicans do so nonchalantly (comparing max cleland to Osama for example).

      -Fred

      by FredFred on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:57:44 PM PDT

  •  "He can win the Senate seat in VA"

    Do you mean in '06 against George Allen or in '08 for the John Warner (no relation) seat?

    by geekynerd on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:29:58 PM PDT

•  mike easley is my pick

  i will have to inquire about his views and executive history. he was also a two-term nc ag. look guys if easley is more conservative on some other things and liberal on others, so be it. i do remember when bill clinton ran in 1992, not to many liberals were crazy about him either(pro-death penalty,pro balanced budget,etc.), but when we want the white house real bad again u have to make sacrafices.

  by terrond on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 08:38:36 PM PDT

•  Governors turned Senators

  Dont forget former Governors who are now Senators.  The three are:

  Jay Rockefeller (WV)
  Evan Bayh (IN)
  Ben Nelson (NE)

  Of these, Rockefeller is too old and Nelson is too right-wing, but Bayh would be an excellent choice.

  by geekynerd on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:21:51 PM PDT

•  But

  But...if you're point in seeking a governor is that they portray themselves as executive/in charge guys and they don't have a long voting record to demonize...then governors who go to Congress lose both advantages...and are no stronger than any other Senator who wants to be president.

  The other argument for governors is that they tend to have an easier time avoiding the internal legislative language that makes sense to insiders but is totally unappealing to others.

  by GregD on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:20:12 AM PDT

•  Rendell

  I don't think Rendell is a serious candidate for president.  For one thing, it's not clear that his popularity in Pennsylvania is stable, for another it's not at all clear that it's transferrable.  He's from NYC, lived his whole adult life in Philly.  His appeal to working-class men is heavily rooted in eastern/ethnic images of working-class manhood--cheese-steak eating, Eagles loving, beer-drinking, union-loving--for better or worse the Dems already win these guys.  It's the ones who are in super-charged churches and hate unions whom we don't win, and it's not clear that Rendell would appeal to them at all.

  Also, I don't know if he wants it.  The rumor in Philly is that he hates being governor and wants to come back to run again for mayor of Philly.

  He's a tough, combative communicator--a perfect fit for fellow Philly guy Chris Matthews--but he's not a great message guy.

  He's also got personal issues that people here forgive him for, but would need to be aired well before a national campaign.  Coming on to a reporter while mayor of Philly (he's married) was a highlight.

  by GregD on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:25:04 AM PDT