The 20-Year Project: Grooming Potential Presidents

By Anthony Vitarelli

Governor, governor, vice president, governor, governor, vice president, vice president.

These are the previous job titles of our seven most recently elected Presidents.* Simply put, state executives and vice presidents become Commander-in-Chief. Voters want a candidate who has managed an executive branch, balanced a publicly financed budget, and projected a powerful authoritative image. Unlike governors, senators and wealthy businessmen are most commonly referred to as “former Presidential candidates” when their bids for the White House fall short.

If the Democratic Party wanted to create a farm team of potential Presidential candidates, it would focus its resources on winning competitive gubernatorial races where possible. The most promising potential governors would be funneled campaign donations and volunteers to increase the likelihood of winning their respective races. After victory, they would be assisted in acquiring at least some foreign policy credentials, as well as exposure in other states. Reelection campaigns would be well staffed, including support from beyond their constituencies.

But let’s back up a step. Once people become governor, they can typically take care of themselves for the most part. They have access to (and normally control) the state party apparatus and can employ the statewide bully pulpit on most local issues. If they have any desires for the White House, they can proactively begin fundraising out of state and do not need much encouragement to seize the national stage when possible.

The deeper question is how to construct a farm team of potential governors: a deep base of qualified lieutenant governors, attorneys general, state comptrollers, mayors of big cities, and state superintendents of education. How does the Democratic Party become populated with candidates that voters perceive as qualified to serve as governor?

Enter the Campaign for a National Majority. This 527 organization, founded five years ago by a group of law students and undergraduates, seeks to identify capable potential governors early in their career through an exhaustive research model. Once its staff members identify candidates (they have selected six candidates in 2005), they funnel these candidates financial support and volunteer hours from across the country. As the organization notes frequently, these races are typically “small money” races where an infusion of external cash can have a decisive impact.

Moreover, their research model incorporates more than polling data and media reports. They interview high school teachers and neighbors; they employ statistical models; they assemble a massive portfolio of data on each individual that seeks identify behavior traits that might make one more electable. They do not subscribe to a rigid political philosophy – these guys play to win.

Despite their existence stemming from conclusion of the Gore campaign, this electoral cycle represents their first major foray onto the national scene. They have recently been written up in Roll Call and have expanded their national volunteer database to over 10,000 professionals. While they began in typically Democratic enclaves like New York, Boston, and San Francisco, they have recently opened chapters in San Antonio, Richmond, and New Orleans – what could be called the “purple state strategy.”

Assume for a moment that their efforts succeed continually, and voters elect more Democrats than normal to non-gubernatorial statewide positions. The presence of more qualified gubernatorial candidates naturally translates into more successful Democratic gubernatorial campaigns, although this certainly will not translate with 100 percent effectiveness.

Remember, though, Democrats only need to nominate one candidate every four years for President. If their model elects four of six statewide candidates each year, that creates 16 additional candidates per gubernatorial election cycle (assuming an average term of four years). If only a paltry 15 percent of those candidates become governor, that still yield two additional potential Presidents every four years… and we only need one.

Their model is not perfect, of course. Their and my assumption that incumbent governors will independently seek to hone their pre-presidential credentials remains true, but the DNC (or other organizations) could provide access to many more avenues through which governors could become more national figures. Working with organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council, Governors Bill Clinton, Evan Bayh, and Tom Vilsack received national exposure and Presidential policymaking resumes. Their model may function as a natural extension of the CNM’s farm system (although the DLC subscribes to a stricter political philosophy). Moreover, the Democratic National Committee could be far more intentional about including governors on foreign policy trips – especially those involving trade relations that could particularly impact their state (see Governor Jeb Bush’s recent trip to Central America).

With the continually growing power of the executive branch, aggressive and early candidate recruitment must reside at the core of the Democratic Party’s strategy for retaking the White House in the future. While candidate recruitment for congressional races remains important, the marginal benefit of having an excellent presidential candidate far outweighs the marginal benefit of a score of excellent congressional candidates. The Party must views these efforts as a strategic investment in its ability to retake the White House in the coming generations.

* George W. Bush (Texas), Bill Clinton (Arkansas), George H.W. Bush (Ronald Reagan’s VP), Reagan (California), Jimmy Carter (Georgia), Richard Nixon (Dwight D. Eisenhower’s VP), and Lyndon B. Johnson (John F. Kennedy’s VP)