The Volokh Conspiracy

I don't believe so. The only two times (to my recollection) that a sitting senator has won the presidency have been 1920 (Harding) and 1960 (Kennedy). Harding defeated James Cox, sitting governor of Ohio, and Kennedy defeated Nixon, sitting Vice President.

Also in the 1960 election, Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd won his state and took its electoral votes, although he wasn't a major-party nominee. Does that make three members of the Senate in '60?

Just kidding about the last--we know from our current Vice-President that the VP is a member of neither the Executive nor the Legislative Branch.

The office of senator changed a lot after 1914 because of the 17th amendment. Since they were appointed by the state legislators the senator's term tended to be shorter and their focus had to stay on the state or they wouldn't be reappointed.

There were some senatoral candidates for president prior to 1914, but they were much rarer than today. Prior to 1914 the senator's attention was tuned to activities back in the state. The state politicians had the power to send him back next term. Running for president would have been frowned upon by most states.

I don't think there has been a senator vs senator since 1914, and would be very surprised if there was one before.

That list of presidents who had previoiusly been senators is interesting. There's six in a row from Monroe to Tyler, then only 5 in the entire 20th century.

Except for Andrew Jackson, no one on that entire list of 15 is considered to have been a particularly good (or effective) president either. There's one that was assassinated, one more that died in office, one that was impeached, one that was almost impeached, plus the Teapot Dome guy who maybe should have been impeached, and then the rest of the roster is composed of seat-fillers.

Doesn't give much hope for Obama/Clinton/McCain.

McCardle,

You are incorrect about the 1960 election. VP Nixon carried Virginia in 1960, albeit with the help of the Byrd machine that sat out the election.

Uncommitted electors were chosen in Mississippi and for half of Alabama's delegation. They cast their votes for Senator Byrd in the Electoral College, but they were not elected as Byrd delegates.

The vice president is no more a senator by virtue of presiding over the body than are William Rehnquist and Salmon Chase.

It came surprisingly close to happening in 1860. Stephen Douglas was a sitting Senator and John Bell was a Senator until 1858.

In the 1824 election, Jackson was a sitting Senator, Adams and Crawford will former Senators (and were both in the Cabinet when they ran, the only time that's happened), and Henry Clay was a future Senator and incumbent Speaker of the House.

Sitting Senators have a difficult time even being nominated--as 2 posters have noted, only 2 sitting Senators have been elected President--Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy.

However, it is worse than that--sitting Senators have only been nominated a handful of times by either major party. In reverse chronological order, losing U.S. Senators were John Kerry (2004); Robert Dole (1996) (though he resigned from the Senate after being nominated); George McGovern (1972); Barry Goldwater (1964); Robert LaFollette (1924) (as a 3rd party candidate); James G. Blaine (1884); Stephen Douglas (1860); Daniel Webster and Hugh Lawson White (1836) (both as Whigs); Henry Clay (1832); and Rufus King (1816).

Obviously, since Syd Henderson was right about Andrew Jackson, so was Mattie G. My apologies for not mentioning him in my last post.

I am guessing that Oliver Ellsworth did not "run" for President in any traditional sense.

Except for Andrew Jackson, no one on that entire list of 15 is considered to have been a particularly good (or effective) president either. There's one that was assassinated, one more that died in office, one that was impeached, one that was almost impeached, plus the Teapot Dome guy who maybe should have been impeached, and then the rest of the roster is composed of seat-fillers.

Yes, which is what we would expect of people with no executive experience. Governor -> President is a move directly up the food chain, from running a state to running a country. Senator -> President is to go from lawmaking to an executive position, which is a completely different set of skills.

pjohnson,

John C. Breckenridge was Vice President. Likewise James Garfield was elected to the Senate in 1880 by the Ohio Legislature before being elected President the same year. Though he was technically a Senator-elect, Garfield was but a mere U.S. Representative at the time of his election to the Presidency.

Weren't there any other sitting Representatives elected besides Garfield?

Same is true in many other countries. I wonder why American mayors seem to be disqualified to run for higher office?

Probably the assumption that if mayor is good, governor is better? Although the mayor might have had more direct control over the operations of the city, it is not the second-highest position; that would be the state governor.

To analogise: a position as mayor is like being a junior VP. Even if you are the junior VP of a really, really large division, the senior VP of a smaller division may be considered as the next-in-line for the presidency.

Chris,

I believe that Polk was Speaker of the House when elected President.

theobromophile:

Of course a governor is hyerarchically above a mere mayor. But just as a division manager of Microsoft may well command more respect than the president of a 10-employee software sweatshop in the Bay Area, the mayor of New York's management skills must be at least on a par with those of the governor of South Dakota. Not to mention that the Giulianis, Kochs, Daleys, La Guardias of the world had much higher name recognition than any governor from a minor state.

Interesting that the event is so rare, yet is happening at a time when Congress' approval ratings are at a record (?) low. You'd think electing a sitting member of Congress would be the last thing that the people want, yet that's what we are going to get.