Incumbency: Is the 'incumbency advantage' overrated? Can it be a disadvantage? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 11, 2024, 11:52:35 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Incumbency: Is the 'incumbency advantage' overrated? Can it be a disadvantage? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Incumbency: Is the 'incumbency advantage' overrated? Can it be a disadvantage?  (Read 9562 times)
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,525
United States


« on: July 21, 2019, 01:44:06 PM »

Incumbency is an advantage unless (1900 on, implying also chances of an incumbent running for a third term for which he is Constitutionally eligible  )

1. one's party splinters (1912)
2. one's grand dream of foreign policy implodes (1920)
3.  the economy collapses (1932)
4. a war goes badly (1952, 1968)
5. one is an incompetent campaigner for President (1976)
6. a gross embarrassment happens in foreign policy (1980)
7. one has no idea of what to do in a Second Term (1992)

I see multiple reasons for Donald Trump to lose a re-election bid: extremism, corruption, abuse of power, and perhaps a trade war that goes badly.

 

Ford ran probably the best losing campaign by any candidate since maybe Hughes in 1916.


He really didn't.  Between "drop dead NY", no Soviet Domination, and his failure to explain what made Nixon more special than draft dodgers, I'd argue he did worse than Gore or Hillary.

No, Carter simply ran the worst winning campaign.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.017 seconds with 11 queries.