Is it worth muddying her Presidential ambitions by giving her a Senate record to defend? As opposed to being the "Washington outsider from the Midwest" that she can sell herself as now?
Is it worth muddying her Presidential ambitions by giving her a Senate record to defend? As opposed to being the "Washington outsider from the Midwest" that she can sell herself as now?
In the Senate you have to vote for all kinds of stuff that can be controversial and might hurt in a presidential race. That goes for Senators of both parties.
True, Senators have more acquaintance with foreign policy and other national issues, but governors do have an advantage in that they can run on their record of getting things done as executives and of not being part of the "mess in Washington" when the federal government is unpopular--which recently it almost always is. Plus Whitmer can boast of running a large, competitive state with both supportive and opposing legislatures.
Bill Clinton was the last real outsider Democratic Presidential Nominee who served as POTUS after having been Governor.
Although 1992 was a much different and by contrast more civil political environment, Clinton had the advantage of being an outsider. There was very little that Bush Sr. was able to do other than do mudslinging at Clinton. Even the mudslinging that Clinton had to deal with was nothing compared to what John Kerry had to withstand. Him being Governor of Arkansas helped him, particularly in the South.
I think we need more outsiders and less insiders in the Democratic Party running for office.
If she wants to run for President yeah avoid the Senate, plus there really isn't an opening? I don't see Gary Peters retiring and Slotkin just got elected.
Is it worth muddying her Presidential ambitions by giving her a Senate record to defend? As opposed to being the "Washington outsider from the Midwest" that she can sell herself as now?
Why do you assume Whitmer would become muddied by serving as a senator?
In the Senate you have to vote for all kinds of stuff that can be controversial and might hurt in a presidential race. That goes for Senators of both parties.
True, Senators have more acquaintance with foreign policy and other national issues, but governors do have an advantage in that they can run on their record of getting things done as executives and of not being part of the "mess in Washington" when the federal government is unpopular--which recently it almost always is. Plus Whitmer can boast of running a large, competitive state with both supportive and opposing legislatures.
IтАЩll buy that. Makes a lot of sense.
Bill Clinton was the last real outsider Democratic Presidential Nominee who served as POTUS after having been Governor.
Although 1992 was a much different and by contrast more civil political environment, Clinton had the advantage of being an outsider. There was very little that Bush Sr. was able to do other than do mudslinging at Clinton. Even the mudslinging that Clinton had to deal with was nothing compared to what John Kerry had to withstand. Him being Governor of Arkansas helped him, particularly in the South.
I think we need more outsiders and less insiders in the Democratic Party running for office.
she's not running for Senate
If she wants to run for President yeah avoid the Senate, plus there really isn't an opening? I don't see Gary Peters retiring and Slotkin just got elected.