Larry J. Sabato is university professor of politics and director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, which publishes the online, free Crystal Ball politics newsletter every Thursday, and a contributing editor at Politico Magazine. His most recent book is The Kennedy Half-Century: The Presidency, Assassination, and Lasting Legacy of John F. Kennedy.

If you live under a governor, you mainly care about his or her ability to govern. If you don’t, and you’re in the political community, you primarily want to know whether a governor is presidential timber.

Our general preference for governors has emerged over time. In the republic’s first eight decades, the presidency was gained by candidates best known for being generals, vice presidents and secretaries of state. That last category, in particular, stands out as a surprisingly significant presidential feeder: Six of the first 15 presidents had previously served as secretary of state. The last was James Buchanan, whose disastrous tenure led up to the Civil War. No former secretary of state has been elected president since, which gives Hillary Clinton another historical barrier to break if she captures the White House.


It wasn’t until 1876 that an incumbent governor became president—Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio. Actually, a governor had to win that year because the Democrats nominated Gov. Samuel Tilden of New York.

Gradually, Americans began to associate the executive offices of president and governor, recognizing that the skill set for success was somewhat similar. The era of governor-presidents opened in earnest with Grover Cleveland, then William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt (who had only a few months in the vice presidency after his well-known New York governorship), Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

In modern times, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush continued the trend. The seven sitting governors elected directly to the White House outnumber the incumbent senators elected to lead the nation—just three, Warren Harding, John Kennedy and Barack Obama. All told, 17 presidents served as governor at some point before their presidency, and 16 served as U.S. senator. (In the past 100 years, the major political parties have also nominated nine losing White House candidates whose most recent office was state governor.)

President Obama’s initial election in 2008 was unusual in that it was the first time since 1972 that neither major-party candidate had served as governor. At least on the surface, then, odds would appear decent that one party in 2016 will nominate a governor.

On the Democratic side, with Clinton standing as the colossus, only two relatively unknown governors appear interested in mounting a challenge: Brian Schweitzer of Montana, who served two terms in Helena from 2005-2013, and Martin O’Malley of Maryland, now finishing his second term. New York’s Andrew Cuomo is on some pundits’ lists, but so far he seems even less inclined toward a bid than his gubernatorial father, Mario, who played Hamlet in 1992 and ultimately did not run. One important difference between Cuomo and O’Malley is that the New York executive does not have a term limit, meaning Cuomo could run for a third term in 2018 (assuming he wins reelection this year, as is expected). Some people run for president because they don’t have anything better to do—O’Malley, forced to leave office at the end of the year, could be one. Cuomo, meanwhile, could bide his time, though his father—after passing on presidential runs—ended up losing a bid for a fourth gubernatorial term, in 1994, to Republican George Pataki.

A few 2016 watchers are touting three-term California Gov. Jerry Brown, but he would be 78 years old in the election year and has so far demurred. The idea seems far-fetched, though Brown has run for president three times before, in 1976, 1980 and 1992, and he is still one of the most unpredictable figures on the political scene. Maybe he will be the ultimate test of the adage that only death is a cure for presidential fever.

To this point, the governor who has received the lion’s share of attention in the presidential sweepstakes is of course New Jersey Republican Chris Christie, who presumably is still planning to run if he can withstand the bridge scandal—a big if. Texas Gov. Rick Perry is pining for another candidacy, perhaps having remembered the third thing he wanted to tell us in that famous 2012 debate. Other Republican governors might also be tempted by the wide-open GOP field, including Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Bill Haslam of Tennessee and John Kasich of Ohio. Jindal is term-limited and out of office in 2015. Walker, Haslam and Kasich have to get reelected in 2014, and all are favored in varying degrees to do so.

Some have tagged the GOP’s two Hispanic governors, New Mexico’s Susana Martinez and Nevada’s Brian Sandoval, as potential candidates, but they (especially Martinez) are much more likely to end up on the short list for vice president. After all, the top Republican contenders for 2016 are largely white men, with the exception of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and Republicans might want to avoid another white-bread presidential ticket. Both Martinez and Sandoval are heavy reelection favorites this year. If either of them did jump into the presidential mix, Martinez seems like the likelier pick: Her politics would play better in the primary than Sandoval, who has governed as a moderate and is a low-key, pro-choice former judge.

Every now and then, a small-state governor such as Howard Dean of Vermont will surprise us, test the waters and make a splash. Bill Clinton proved that ambition transcends state size, and if the conditions are just right, a talented pol can go all the way. Generally speaking, though, gubernatorial presidential candidates come from mid-to-large-sized states, like Carter (Georgia), Reagan (California), Bush (Texas), Adlai Stevenson (Illinois), or Michael Dukakis and Mitt Romney (Massachusetts). There’s no geographic rhyme or reason, though a governor from a non-California western state might have to work a little harder to build his or her name recognition.

It’s also not impossible that a newly elected governor, having caught a wave on some big issue in 2014, could decide to go for broke, much as Reagan did in his first presidential bid in 1968. The Gipper had been elected California governor just two years earlier.

Another factor that will encourage some governors’ national ambitions is that most incumbent state executives on the ballot this November are in solid shape, to judge by early polling, and will be difficult to dislodge. As Christie demonstrated before his recent troubles, when you can win big and carry groups not normally found in your party’s column, it amplifies the presidential buzz. That is especially true in today’s Republican Party, which is behind the demographic eight-ball and desperately needs to broaden its appeal beyond whites, men and older voters.

Even if a wave develops for one party or the other in the fall, the gubernatorial contests may remain relatively undisturbed, while many Senate and House candidates could sink. This is a pattern that has played out frequently, since the contests for statehouses are not quite as tethered to national factors as races for Congress.

In the 1946 midterm, for example, Harry Truman’s Democrats lost 55 House seats and 12 Senate seats but picked up two governorships. In 1970, Richard Nixon’s Republicans added three Senate seats but lost 11 net governorships. And in 1986, Republicans actually netted eight governor’s mansions while they were losing control of the Senate.

The 1986 example is especially germane, because it shows how a split decision from voters can be caused in part by the calendar. Republicans were overextended in the 1986 Senate races, defending some weak incumbents elected on Reagan’s 1980 coattails. Meanwhile, Democrats were just as overextended in the gubernatorial contests because in 1982 they had added seven governorships in a recession-fueled, anti-GOP election. Thus, while superficially puzzling, contradictory results can make sense.

Another big factor in expecting little statehouse turnover is incumbency: Over the past half century, about 80 percent of incumbent governors running in even-numbered general election years have been reelected. A relatively high number of incumbents are running this time: 29 of 36 governors, assuming no more retirements or any primary losses. A few of these incumbents will probably lose, but they would be the exceptions that prove the rule. Republicans currently hold 29 of 50 governorships; that number could drop by a couple, net, but stability may turn out to be the 2014 watchword. The most endangered Republican governors are Pennsylvania’s Tom Corbett, Florida’s Rick Scott, and Maine’s Paul LePage. On the Democratic side, Pat Quinn of Illinois heads the vulnerable list, and Arkansas—currently held by term-limited Democrat Mike Beebe—is a toss-up.

But for those who do win, the validity conferred by reelection, especially a sweeping one, is the genesis of bigger ambitions. Reelected, term-limited governors inevitably start to think about what’s next, and a presidential candidacy or two can take root.

While the Senate outcome will grab the big headlines, statehouse elections may have as much or greater significance. In the wee hours of election night, when the victory declarations are done and governors-elect are left alone to their thoughts, more than a few could be humming “Hail to the Chief.”