comment: >
  
  Not a sitting Senator when elected, but Joe Biden was formerly a senator and historically the VP has been equally not successful as a launchpad to the Presidency up until the past half century with Nixon and Bush 41 (not really counting Ford since he didn't win election for the presidency).
context: I don't think Cruz or Rubio ever led in polling in the 2016 primary. It was first Jeb (governor) and then Trump (CEO). Kasich (governor) was towards the top as well as Carson (doctor) and Christie (governor). 
  Conventional wisdom has always placed governors above senators for presidential resumes. I don't think that has ever not been the case. >
  
  Yeah, DeSantis is giving Jeb vibes. He’s actually quite boring when you listen to him. So I would hold off on annotating him as the rightful heir to the Trump crown. >
  
  Yeah his stock is gonna keep rising as people read more and more headlines and snippets about him, but when the primary comes around and they all listen to him speak, he's gonna come crashing back down. 
  And it's not that he's stupid or slow or crazy or anything, those are fine for the GOP base; as you said, he's boring, and that is a killer to them. >
  
  He's also short and has a squirrely voice.
  Edit: I'll also add that he barely beat Putnam in the 2018 GOP primary and barely beat a pretty bad candidate in Andrew Gillum in the general in a state that hasn't elected a Democrat for governor in generations. He ran against an absolute hump in Charlie Crist in 2022 in a midterm year favorable to Republicans. 
  I have no idea why anyone thinks this dude is a shoe-in to be the GOP nominee let alone the president. >
  
  is 5'11" short now? >
  
  I think he's embellishing the 5'11" part. Seeing him around other people and he doesn't strike me as someone knocking on six foot's door.
  Either way, there hasn't been a president under 6' since Jimmy Carter. Before that was Eisenhower. That's two presidents in the television era to be elected under 6'. >
  
  Is everybody forgetting G.W. Bush? >
  
  Sadly, people usually do.   
  As someone who tends to find himself on the left side of the aisle, I find that somewhat sad. He is the last Republican president I have any respect for, and one of only two since Taft. >
  
  While only 3 presidents have jumped directly to the Senate, in total 17 presidents (or slightly over a third) of U.S. Presidents served in the Senate at some point before becoming president. You can knock it down to 15 if you want to nitpick that Andrew Johnson and John Tyler were never elected as president, with Johnson finishing off Lincoln's second term, and Tyler filling in for whichever Harrison died after catching a cold during his inauguration.
  Also, I think it's a little hard to call a job that only 100 out of 300 million people hold, a "dead end." To add to that there are also plenty of senators who have made it into presidential administrations for various cabinet and diplomatic posts. >
  
  So for posterity, here's a handy 538 article from 2019 (before Biden) on stepping stones to the presidency
  ​
  Then, I calculated out the percentage to normalize a success rate:
  ​
  VP: 55.56% (60% counting Biden)
  SCOTUS: 0%
  Cabinet: 50%
  Governor: 47.52%
  US Senator: 38.89%
  US Rep: 28.57%
  Other: 55.56%
  ​
  So yes, historically, it would behoove candidates to try to become Governors over Senators. However, it will also depend on the ambition of the type of politician - like I would never think McConnell would try to aim for the presidency. Or John Quincy Adams who was President but then went back to Congress as a House Rep for 17 years (he was Senator before Ambassador, and Secretary of State then President). So I don't think there will be a migration of candidates fleeing the Senate looking for the Governorship, as the national Republican machine will want as many levers of control of government as possible. >
  
  have any scotus judges tried to run? how does that even work, resign and then run? >
  
  Associate Justice Charles Evans Hughes was the Republican nominee in 1916 against Woodrow Wilson. He is the only SCOTUS Justice to serve as a major party nominee. It looks like he resigned from the court in June 1916 to accept the GOP nomination. >
  
  i wonder if we'll ever see it again. >
  
  Looking back at 1916, it was a pretty unique pick then. Hughes never sought the nomination (but also said he wouldn’t turn it down if nominated), and he was seen by party leaders as a way to heal the divisions from 1912 between Roosevelt and Taft. He had not spoken on political issues since joining the court in 1910 so he pleased both progressives and conservatives still salty over 1912.
  As for today, the federal courts really do seem to be “professionalized” in a way they weren’t even in 1916 thanks to the Judicial Wars. Both parties nominate the best and brightest of their respective legal philosophies who work their ways through elite universities, prestigious clerkships, and lower courts on the way to SCOTUS as opposed to sitting governors or Senators. This seemingly has strengthened the norm of SCOTUS justices not being prospective candidates for anything let alone President. That’s a long way of saying, I doubt we’ll see a sitting Justice run for President. >
  
  thanks for the detailed answer, that makes sense >
  
  Honestly, I hate that first term Senators like Rubio and Cruz in 2016 run for president. Obama did it, took heat for inexperience, then suddenly everyone decided that experience no longer mattered. I would like Senators and governors to stick around for like one single full term before looking to the next job. 
  I know this isn't realistic, but it's annoying to me. I think having some experience, relationships and fluency with DC really makes a difference in terms of both evaluating a leader and how effective they would be. Graham's anti-endorsement of Cruz ("drink poison") was very telling, for instance, because they pointed to Cruz's difficulty making meaningful relationships on the Hill. Biden's overall effectiveness as president has been definitely helped by his ability to communicate with his former peers and understanding of what to delegate. >
  
  Its because we've created a political culture where being branded a dc insider is the worst thing in the world. This is especially true in conservative politics where Federal government is a monster that must be slain at all costs. So in order to avoid that label they run in their first term so they can be the 'outsider' that's ready to clean up washington. >
  
  Which, IMO is dumb.
  The most effective president by just…raw legistlation, civil rights and social safety net programs? LBJ. Because the man was the insider’s insider. God’s perfect sociopath who everyone in the town either owed him a favor or had been personally harassed into doing what he needed. >
  
  I think governors are better suited to be president than Senators because they have that executive experience, and historically that is the case. Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr, Carter, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and that is just in the 20th century. The idea of senator as a stepping stone only originated with Barack Obama, who didn’t even serve a full term. >
  
  i would say that that is a talking point people use when discussing the race, but there's no real indication that people who are better suited or have more experience tend to win the presidential race.  or the nomination.  voters just care about who they like.  then they go find the reasons to support them.  just look at the 5 presidentials elections.  the more popular, socially loved person won.  not gore, not kerry, not mccain, not romney, not hillary, not trump.   i think out of the group, only trump and romney could be said to be the lesser fit to serve the roll.  and romeny had a governorship vs a president. and trump had been president vs a guy who's been in government forever. >
  
  The governors have the executive branch experience, that is the big difference. There are senators who are former governors, but the executive experience is key, and something clearly lacking from the last 3 presidents. >
  
  What I'm saying is, voters don't care.  It's only a retroactive talking point after you decide if you "like" a candidate or not.. >
  
  Like you said, historically most Presidential nominees don't come from the Senate, so a Desantis nomination would be a continuation of the status quo.    
  That being said, American politics are full of ambitious and deluded people and the Senate is a major part of American politics so Senators will continue to run for President and some might even win the job. >
  
  Trump is a unicorn politically. He’s not viewed as a politician. I think republicans know that and don’t attribute losses against Trump to previous political titles. >
  
  Yeah and this was Trump's secret weapon.  Millions of apolitical people who voted for Trump won't show up for DeSantis or anyone else whom they see as "another politician".
  The other thing is that Trump was nearly impossible to get policy attacks to stick to, especially among working class voters.  I suspect that another Republican will have a much tougher time with a different candidate avoiding getting tagged for unpopular policy positions. >
  
  Inagine Cruz trying to fix the power grid in Texas.  What a hilarious thought >
  
  In the last 75 years, Truman, Johnson, Biden were all sitting senators when they became vice-presidents, and based on that later presidents themselves. I say it is a pretty good spot to vie for the top job. >
  
  To be fair Johnson is not like those other two listed >
  
  naw.  people who run for president think they're different than everyone in the past and are special and people will vote for them.  also the senate is actually a better job.  tons of access, and you're not done in 8 years.  you can be there forever.  just look at how old some of these senators are. 
  secondly...  senators don't lose cuz they're in the senate.  it's just that the senate attracts a completely different type of candidate.  you have to be more charming and politically loved as a governor.  Senators?  they need to be fundraising machines, and do what the party tells them to do.  the parties don't want a gazillion leaders and inspirational people in the senate.  they want like 4 or 5 shinning stars, and a bunch of others that just push a button when told.  then the robot gets a big head and wants to run for president and doesn't win.  doesn't mean the senate is a bad spring board, it's the people that end up in the senate. >
  
  The governorship truly is a better stepping stone to the presidency, because they have a record as an executive in their state.
  Senators can only really show some bill they sponsored or voted for to show their record, but it doesn't show leadership or executive experience. >
  
  No. A couple data points wouldn't make a trend, historically governors still always had good chances of winning presidential primaries or even general elections but that doesn't mean senators don't often win them too. >
  
  DeSantis will not be the nominee.  He has no appeal outside of Florida.  Its clear that while much of the US leans right, the majority are not ready to ban all abortions even if an 11 year old is raped.  We aren't ready to go full Fascist and ignore the Constitution to "hurt the right people."
  Sure, these assholes are very vocal, but outside of a few strong holds, this flavor of Trumpism/Republicanism is simply not going to win on the national stage.  
  The media talks about him as if he is some "savior" for Republicans but he is a loser for them. 
  Republicans need the suburban while moms to vote for them- thats the only swing voter left- and these people aren't as right leaning as Republicans want you to believe. >
  
  I agree. He is too far to the right on social issues to win across the nation. He's hitched his wagons too much on social culture wars that it's pretty impossible for him to moderate on those. 
  For example, the moment he signs a 6-week abortion ban (which is pretty much an total ban on elective abortions) that makes it past the legislatures in Florida, his chances of winning a general election go straight to 0%. 
  He's just not someone that will court "moderates" in suburban districts, and I don't get why people on political Reddit subs keep saying he's an insurmountable candidate who would destroy Biden or any other Dem candidate. >
  
  Imagine the first time Biden has to debate someone not trump. It will be a man beating a child. This is coming from someone who actually is very impressed with his telling everyone who second guessed his leaving Afghanistan to more or less go fuck themselves. >
  
  If only you understood Trump freed Taliban leaders and chose the time to withdraw with no plan in place… >
  
  No you don't understand. I 100% support Biden in what happened. It was always going to be a shitshow, and he just fucking ended it. He completely ignored the screeching from people being like "NO WE HAVE TO STAY FOREVAR" and I admire him for it. >
  
  The number of Republicans who will be able to win national or statewide offices is going to continue to decline.
  The people aren't buying what they are selling. Half of their support comes from people over 60. People under 60 favor Democrats by 65-35
  The Republican Party continues to look backwards, and the Democratic Party continues to look forwards.
  If you are a retiree, it might suit you to live in the past. The younger generations need to be anticipating what comes next. >
  
  I’ve always seen a governorship as a logical stepping stone or prerequisite for being a valid presidential candidate. It’s not that you don’t have plenty of qualified candidates in the legislature but the job they do is fundamentally different with the scope of responsibility for the executive, IMO, being much wider. That being said, I always give more of a look to someone who is a sitting or former (recently) Governor or a current high ranking Secretary, particularly Defence, State, or maybe one of the Service Secretaries. Obviously Obama did a good job but I think that was more on his personality and the people he surrounded himself with more than anything.