With the New Hampshire victories of Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Clinton, the leading contenders for both the Republican and Democratic nominations appear to be sitting Senators. Certainly that’s true on the Democratic side: John Edwards seems nearly an afterthought this morning, as the press hones in on Obama and Clinton. On the Republican side, you have to like Senator McCain’s chances: only twice since 1968 has the winner of the New Hampshire primary failed to win the GOP presidential nomination (Pat Buchanan, 1996; John McCain, 2000). All appropriate caveats apply, of course: something unexpected can always happen; Mike Huckabee may win in South Carolina and seize control of the race; Mitt Romney could bounce back; Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson may emerge once the primaries shift south. But if the two major party nominees are both senators, we will see an end to a 48-year run of voter rejection. Not since John F. Kennedy in 1960 has a sitting senator won the White House. Pundits say that senators can’t win because they have generally cast too many tough votes, they lack the ‘executive aura,’ or they have become too steeped in Senate speak. The poster children for failed Senate bids are people like Bob Dole and John Kerry: nice, hard-working, bright–but not real presidential material. If both major party candidates wind up being senators, the voters will have to suck it up and pick one, right? Or will the candidates be lackluster enough that it will give hope to an independent bid?
