Senator ___________ for President?

In part of my ongoing "political science moments" series, I caught an interesting article on Drudge that made me think of something interesting about this campaign. First off, look at the last 52 years of presidential face-offs, and see what pattern there is:

2004 - Pres. Bush def. Sen. Kerry
2000 - Gov. Bush def. V.P./Sen. Gore
1996 - Pres. Clinton def. Sen. Dole
1992 - Gov. Clinton def. Pres. Bush
1988 - V.P. Bush def. Gov. Dukakis
1984 - Pres. Reagan def. Sen. Mondale
1980 - Gov. Reagan def. Pres. Carter
1976 - Gov. Carter def. Pres. Ford*
1972 - Pres. Nixon def. Sen. McGovern
1968 - Former V.P. Nixon def. Standing V.P. Humphrey**
1964 - Pres. Johnson*** def. Sen. Goldwater
1960 - Sen. Kennedy def. V.P./Gov. Nixon
1958 - Pres. Eisenhower v. Gov. Stevenson

Of the 13 elections mentioned, the last time a non-executive defeated an executive (President, V.P., or Governor) was when, thanks in no small part to Nixon's cold versus Kennedy's dynamic personality (and willingness to wear makeup) on the first televised presidential debate, Senator John F. Kennedy defeated former Governor-then-Vice-President Richard Nixon.

In 6 elections where an executive went up against a Senator, 5 were won by the executive. The numbers jump to 8 and 7 respectively when you take into account that Vice President Humphrey only served a short time and was previously a Senator and that President Ford was never elected to an executive office and only served a short time as president.

You have to go back to 1928 when former Cabinet member Herbert Hoover defeated former Governor of New York Alfred Smith to find another instance of a non-executive (though telling that he'd served in the executive branch for some time) defeating an executive. Before that, candidates' backgrounds were a bit more diverse and it becomes more difficult to discern patterns.

The theory is that Senators aren't as well-equipped to run a good campaign as are executives, that they're not as experienced at running the size of staff required to organize on a national level, that they're more likely to be career politicians than to bring other experience to the table, and that they've not had to cater to independents like executives have had to. JFK's success doesn't even necessarily refute the theory since you could argue that he was uniquely equipped to overcome these challenges as he came from a political machine family. And he was just a good guy--a social liberal but a Cold War Hawk. All things being equal, it's a pretty good predictor of who will win any given election.

So, if you're a poli sci geek like yours truly, you should be fascinated by this election for the simple reason that it's so rare for two Senators to face off. Even though Sen. McCain has no executive experience, he's no stranger to presidential elections, so maybe that will be to his benefit.

The above-mentioned article refers to something of a behind-the-scenes evidence of experience v. lack thereof. It's a reporter's description of the Obama campaign compared to the McCain campaign. Apparently, Obama's campaign staff is having a bit less success at staying on top of the logistics of a complex national campaign than is McCain's. If conditions are how the reporter describes, it's interesting that the press seems to have as much of a crush on Obama as it has.

I'm eager to see how it all turns out.

*President Ford was a Representative before being appointed as V.P. to replace Sprio Agnew after his resignation. He then succeeded Pres. Nixon after Watergate, never having been elected to either position.
**Vice President Hubert Humphrey was originally a Senator before succeeding Lyndon Johnson as V.P. after President Kennedy was assassinated.
***President Johnson was a Congressman before serving as President Kennedy's V.P. and succeeding him as president.