Why don't New Jersey governors advance politically nationally?

[Suburbia]

Tom Kean Sr. was supposed to be a good Republican running mate in the late 1980s or 1990s. Christie Whitman was the GOP's Thatcher for a while in the 1990s. Jim McGreevey in the early 2000s before the sex scandal was seen as a potential presidential contender down the line. Chris Christie was presidential timber after Hurricane Sandy until Bridgegate and corruption.

Why don't NJ governors advance politically nationally? Will there ever be a NJ governor to go on to be president or vice president?

[pikachu]

Kean and Whitman were too liberal to be a national candidate in the post-Reagan GOP and, well, you answered your own question for McGreevey and Christie...

[Lognog]

Not too sure but party bosses have a lot of influence over the legislature making policy very hard to pass

[Roll Roons]

I wonder why Kean never ran for Senate. He would have easily won in 1988, 1990, 1994, 1996 or 2000.

[Coldstream]

Woodrow Wilson did it, but I think he may have been the last one.

[Roblox]

Nobody likes Jersey.

[RINO Tom]

Totally anecdotal, but a lot of voters seem to associate certain states with corruption and politicians that need to "play the game" locally to get anything done ... that certainly describes my home state, and it's my perception of New Jersey.  Additionally, its extremely suburban demographic situation causes a lot of people to see it as a state lacking in central identity, even with all the Jersey stereotypes out there; it is so often associated with NYC or Philly that I think a lot of people outside of the Northeast don't really think of it as "its own thing."

[Pollster]

A lot of what's been said is true, but another big reason is that the state is damn near ungovernable and its governors often have no record to run nationally on for reasons completely outside of their control:

-The voters are too economically moderate for Democrats to enact their banner issues, and too socially moderate/downright socially liberal for Republicans to enact their banner issues.

-The interests of the northern part of the state are often at odds with the southern part of the state. The two regions (more specifically, the voters in the two regions) actually have very little in common both politically and socioeconomically. It can often feel like two different states with Central NJ being a strange purgatory-like mix of both.

-I've harped about this on these boards before, but political bosses (specifically George Norcross) still have massive pull over state politics here, and governors often have to spend massive political capital fighting them, or ceding power to them. These bosses do a great job slowing down legislation that is otherwise broadly popular - just look at Murphy's slogs to raise the minimum wage and legalize weed. Needless to say, these bosses and their interests don't play well with the grassroots of either party and would be a headache during a Presidential run.

-This isn't caused by any systemic or pre-existing problems/quirks with the state's politics, but many of NJ's recent governors have just been awful politicians. And many of the good ones (or at least good at the time, like Christie in 2012) simply became national-tier at the wrong time and missed their window.

[Blair]

Pollster put it a lot better than I did; but for democrats the donor & business interests tend to burn them a fair bit. It's the same reason why state politicians in Illinois would never do well; as the ruling party you get every grifter trying to hassle you for a planning permit/law change/sweetheart deal etc etc.

Even someone like Cory Booker who started as the anti-machine candidiate has taken stances that harmed him at a national level.

[LabourJersey]

Pollster is pretty much right on the reasons, especially the part about NJ being both noticeably more affluent and noticeably more socially liberal than the nation as a whole. That's an important fact in understanding NJ voters.

However I've always felt that had Christie entered the presidential race in September 2011 he would have won the nomination, especially given how tepid and inch-deep the establishment's support for Romney was. Not sure if even Sandy could have gotten him elected in Nov. 2012, though, but it's impossible to ever know. But bad timing in general is an important factor. 

[Roll Roons]

Pollster is pretty much right on the reasons, especially the part about NJ being both noticeably more affluent and noticeably more socially liberal than the nation as a whole. That's an important fact in understanding NJ voters.

However I've always felt that had Christie entered the presidential race in September 2011 he would have won the nomination, especially given how tepid and inch-deep the establishment's support for Romney was. Not sure if even Sandy could have gotten him elected in Nov. 2012, though, but it's impossible to ever know. But bad timing in general is an important factor. 

Without Bridgegate, I think he would have won the nomination and the presidency in 2016. Before that, he was the clear establishment favorite, and his very successful run as RGA chairman in 2014 gave him a lot of goodwill. He also had Trump's "tell it like it is" appeal without the sexism or narcissism.

[LabourJersey]

Pollster is pretty much right on the reasons, especially the part about NJ being both noticeably more affluent and noticeably more socially liberal than the nation as a whole. That's an important fact in understanding NJ voters.

However I've always felt that had Christie entered the presidential race in September 2011 he would have won the nomination, especially given how tepid and inch-deep the establishment's support for Romney was. Not sure if even Sandy could have gotten him elected in Nov. 2012, though, but it's impossible to ever know. But bad timing in general is an important factor. 

Without Bridgegate, I think he would have won the nomination and the presidency in 2016. Before that, he was the clear establishment favorite, and his very successful run as RGA chairman in 2014 gave him a lot of goodwill. He also had Trump's "tell it like it is" appeal without the sexism or narcissism.

Um, Christie's political brand had a healthy dose of narcissism to it. Just not as much as Trump. I'd agree that had Bridgegate hadn't happened his road to the nomination would have been a lot easier.

[Suburbia]

Pollster is pretty much right on the reasons, especially the part about NJ being both noticeably more affluent and noticeably more socially liberal than the nation as a whole. That's an important fact in understanding NJ voters.

However I've always felt that had Christie entered the presidential race in September 2011 he would have won the nomination, especially given how tepid and inch-deep the establishment's support for Romney was. Not sure if even Sandy could have gotten him elected in Nov. 2012, though, but it's impossible to ever know. But bad timing in general is an important factor. 

Without Bridgegate, I think he would have won the nomination and the presidency in 2016. Before that, he was the clear establishment favorite, and his very successful run as RGA chairman in 2014 gave him a lot of goodwill. He also had Trump's "tell it like it is" appeal without the sexism or narcissism.

Christie would never be elected president, he is not that charismatic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

New Jersey already gave us Wilson.  Let the governors of other States have a chance to mess things up.

[GP270watch]

NJ politics are notoriously corrupt. Same reason we don't see Illinois governors ascend.

[The Mikado]

Agreed that Christie had a real shot at the 2012 GOP nomination if he had actually run.

[NewYorkExpress]

NJ politics are notoriously corrupt. Same reason we don't see Illinois governors ascend.

Blago probably would have been the 2012 nominee had Obama lost (and he not been indicted).

[GP270watch]

NJ politics are notoriously corrupt. Same reason we don't see Illinois governors ascend.

Blago probably would have been the 2012 nominee had Obama lost (and he not been indicted).

 Very unlikely.

[Del Tachi]

Why don't Tennessee governors advance politically nationally?  or Washington?  or Michigan?  or Arizona?  or South Carolina?  et cetera, et cetera

In our current media context, governors just aren't high-profile enough to be immediate contenders for national office (the only states excepted from this rule are CA, NY, TX and FL, which all have +20M people).  A small state governor (like Bill Clinton was in 1992) would have almost no chance of winning the nomination in today's 24-hour cable news and social media-driven environment.

So, I don't think this is a New Jersey issue.  You could ask this question about governors from countless other states as well. 

[Roll Roons]

Why don't Tennessee governors advance politically nationally?  or Washington?  or Michigan?  or Arizona?  or South Carolina?  et cetera, et cetera

In our current media context, governors just aren't high-profile enough to be immediate contenders for national office (the only states excepted from this rule are CA, NY, TX and FL, which all have +20M people).  A small state governor (like Bill Clinton was in 1992) would have almost no chance of winning the nomination in today's 24-hour cable news and social media-driven environment.

So, I don't think this is a New Jersey issue.  You could ask this question about governors from countless other states as well. 

New Jersey is still pretty populous and the majority of its population lives within the NYC media market, so I don't think exposure is the issue. While he was in office, Chris Christie was definitely one of the highest profile governors. He just imploded because of Bridgegate.

[Del Tachi]

Why don't Tennessee governors advance politically nationally?  or Washington?  or Michigan?  or Arizona?  or South Carolina?  et cetera, et cetera

In our current media context, governors just aren't high-profile enough to be immediate contenders for national office (the only states excepted from this rule are CA, NY, TX and FL, which all have +20M people).  A small state governor (like Bill Clinton was in 1992) would have almost no chance of winning the nomination in today's 24-hour cable news and social media-driven environment.

So, I don't think this is a New Jersey issue.  You could ask this question about governors from countless other states as well. 

New Jersey is still pretty populous and the majority of its population lives within the NYC media market, so I don't think exposure is the issue. While he was in office, Chris Christie was definitely one of the highest profile governors. He just imploded because of Bridgegate.

I mean, maybe?  But the question still presupposes that New Jersey governors should advanced to be national political candidates when very few governors (even of states like CA or NY) have found national success recently.

[CookieDamage]

I mean, not a whole lot of other state governors, even govs of big states, have been presidents. Senators, sure.

Obama - Senator
Bush - Governor TX
Clinton - Governor AR
HW Bush - VP, other offices
Reagan - Governor CA
Carter - Governor GA
Ford - VP
Nixon - VP and Senator
Johnson - VP and Senator
Kennedy - Senator
Eisenhower - General
Truman - VP and Senator
FDR - Governor NY
Hoover - Secretary
Coolidge - VP and Governor MA
Harding - Senator
Wilson - Governor
Taft - Secretary, Territorial Governor
Roosevelt - VP and Briefly Governor NY

Since Teddy Roosevelt, a period of about 120 years, NY sent a governor to the white house twice. MA once, CA once, NJ once, TX once, Georgia once, and Arkansas once.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Corzine was already Senator, but got caught up in the Financial crisis and Christie was Prez material before Bridgegate, he would have been Prez in 2016 not Trump had it not been for Bridgegate

Cory Booker would have been Prez but Biden ran he wont be.

[Ye We Can]

Tom Kean was the only one who could have done it, and he evidently had no interest.

[Suburbia]

Tom Kean was the only one who could have done it, and he evidently had no interest.

Kean was blocked by Bush, Dole, Kemp, the titans of the post-Reagan GOP.