I’ve long believed that governors or other former executives make the best presidents. Although several of my favorite occupants of the White House had legislative or congressional experience, as well, each served either as a governor, an administrative official, or a military commander prior to becoming president.
I also believe that in 2016, the Republican primary electorate will end up favoring someone from outside Washington, probably a governor. On the Democratic side, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, she’ll have gained the electorate’s support primarily as a secretary of state (and an informal but powerful member of a previous administration) rather than as a senator. If she isn’t nominated, I think Democrats will choose someone with executive experience.
All that having been said, if governors of either party are to catch fire in 2016, they’ll need to have a compelling story to tell about the central concern of most American voters: the lackluster economy. That may well rule out governors, no matter how talented or attractive they may be, who have presided over relatively slow-growing states.
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis has just released estimates for each state’s gross domestic product in 2013. Recognizing that many potential presidential candidates were elected or reelected to gubernatorial office in 2010, and that it would reasonably have taken at least a year for any governor to put his or her economic policies into place, I pulled GDP data for 2012 and 2013, computing a compound annual growth rate for each state.
Over the past two calendar years, the average annual growth rate for all 50 states was 4 percent. There were 11 states that posted rates at least 15 percent higher than the national average: North Dakota (a sizzling 18 percent), Texas (6.3 percent), Utah (6 percent), Nebraska (5.6 percent), Iowa (5.5 percent), Colorado (5.2 percent), Washington (5 percent), South Dakota (4.9 percent), Oregon (4.9 percent), Oklahoma (4.9 percent), and our own North Carolina (4.7 percent).
As you can see, North Carolina’s relatively strong economic performance was not a reflection of geography. It was the only state in its region to make the national list of top-performing economies. Indeed, most other Southeastern states haven’t been experiencing impressive growth lately. The regional average was only 3.7 percent. South Carolina looked even worse at just 3.4 percent.
On the other end of the distribution, the economies of 18 states had growth rates at least 15 percent below the national average: Alaska (.7 percent), Louisiana (2.2 percent), Maryland (2.4 percent), Wyoming (2.6 percent), Virginia (2.6 percent), New Mexico (2.8 percent), Pennsylvania (2.8 percent), Maine (2.9 percent), New Hampshire (2.9 percent), Connecticut (3 percent), Kentucky (3.1 percent), Missouri (3.1 percent), New York (3.2 percent), Alabama (3.2 percent), Kansas (3.2 percent), Illinois (3.2 percent), West Virginia (3.2 percent), and Rhode Island (3.2 percent).
At a glance, then, you can see why Republican politicians who might well be capable leaders and communicators, such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and New Mexico Gov. Susanna Martinez, face at best a severe rhetorical challenge in running for national office. So do potential Democratic presidential hopefuls such as Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
At the same time, you can see why some consider outgoing Texas Gov. Rick Perry to be a viable contender for the GOP nomination in 2016, despite his disastrous first run in 2012, and why smart Democrats are carefully watching Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s reelection bid this year as a kind of audition for the national stage.
As for the other governors potentially in the Republican mix, at least John Kasich in Ohio (4.4 percent annual average growth) and Mike Pence in Indiana (4.2 percent) can say their states are growing faster than the national average. That’s more than Chris Christie in New Jersey (3.8 percent) and Scott Walker in Wisconsin (3.6 percent) can say.
I have no idea who the 2016 presidential nominees are going to be. Nor do I think it is legitimate to hold a governor fully responsible for the relative success or failure of a state economy that is obviously influenced by many factors beyond state policy. Still, as a political matter, when a governor says “I’ll do for America what I did for my state,” that needs to sound to voters more like a promise than a threat.
John Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.