Susana Martinez

It has often been pointed out that more Governors have been elected President over the course of American history than Senators.

From 1900 on, the following Presidents were earlier Governors of their states—Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush.

The argument is that being a Governor prepares one better for the Presidency than serving in the national government in Washington, DC.

Whether this is true or not, the argument now is that the national government, and particularly the Congress, is so engaged in stalemate and gridlock, that the best choice in the Presidential Election of 2016 would be to go once again for a Governor or former Governor, as occurred four times of the past six Presidents, and seven of the past ten national elections.

So if that is the case, what is the market among Governors?

First, the Democratic side:

Martin O’Malley of Maryland
Andrew Cuomo of New York
John Hickenlooper of Colorado
Mark Warner of Virginia
Brian Schweitzer of Montana
Jerry Brown of California
Howard Dean of Vermont
Deval Patrick of Massachusetts
Dannel Malloy of Connecticut

Now the Republican side

Chris Christie of New Jersey
Jeb Bush of Florida
Scott Walker of Wisconsin
Bobby Jindal of Louisiana
Rick Perry of Texas
John Kasich of Ohio
Jon Huntsman of Utah
Nikki Haley of South Carolina
Mike Pence of Indiana
Brian Sandoval of Nevada
Susana Martinez of New Mexico
Rick Scott of Florida

So, at least in theory, nine former or sitting Democratic Governors and twelve former or sitting Republican Governors are potential Presidential nominees.

Having said that, it is clear that some of these two groups are highly unlikely to be a candidate, or to have any realistic chance to be the nominee, including for the Democrats: Brown, Dean, Malloy, and Patrick, and for the Republicans: Scott, Martinez, Sandoval, Pence, Haley, and sadly (because he would be the best choice for the GOP long term), Huntsman.

For the Democrats, O’Malley and Cuomo and Warner (who has also served in the Senate), would be the best choices, were it not for the “800 pound gorilla” of Hillary Clinton and the slightly smaller version of Joe Biden. Were it not for them, these three listed Democrats would be a great term to compete for the nomination. Hickenlooper is also a good candidate, but would not be considered as likely to have a good chance, and Schweitzer might very well run, based on recent comments and activities, but the odds for him, especially against Clinton and Biden as things now stand, are extremely high of failure, and even of being mostly ignored by political pundits.

For the Republicans, Christie and Bush would be the most likely to have a real opportunity for the Presidency, but with the Tea Party Movement, neither is very popular, to say the least. Walker might be a better bet on that score, with Jindal seeming less attractive as time goes by, and Perry a real long shot based on his past performances. The “dark horse” to watch would be Kasich, who had a long career on Capitol Hill and knows how Washington works, and despite his mixed record in so many areas, is personally appealing, unlike any of those listed In this paragraph, in many ways the most appealing personally other than Huntsman.

If one had to bet which of each list would have the best chance, all things being equal, one would say O’Malley for the Democrats and Kasich for the Republicans, but the odds are that it will be someone from Capitol Hill–Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden for the Democrats, and Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Paul Ryan for the Republicans, with the Democrats having the clear edge in the Electoral College, because of the support of the Atlantic Coast and Pacific Coast, and the likelihood of strong support in the upper Midwest and Illinois and Iowa, along with Virginia, an unmatchable scenario for the Republicans, as we look at the political situation as 2013 ends, but always subject to changing times that are unpredictable.