Incumbent Presidents and opposition party primaries 1976-present

[Kevin]

This part of the 2012 election cycle has gotten me thinking

It seems like when looking at the perspective opposition choices for President(whether that party be Republican or Democratic) vs an incumbent President(of ether party). The candidates the opposition party seems to field always appear very weak. I've noticed this trend running back since 1976(although it could be argued goes back much further).

For instance to name a couple, 1980 included a has-been governor of California viewed as too old, too conservative, and too out of touch to be elected, vs. a WASP well-known in various foreign policy, intel, and other circles who had been out of office for sometime as the main candidates.

1984 was chalked full of a stereotypical dull and uninspiring candidates like Walter Mondale, or people who didn't stand a chance in hell of being elected like Jesse Jackson.

Likewise 1992 wasn't much better featuring an obscure Southern governor with a mixed record vs. a bunch of has-been Senator's and Governor's. Or candidates running way before their time.

1996 was the same featuring ether candidates who had run way too many times, unknowns vying for attention or antiquated Rockefeller Republicans.

2004, featured a governor from an obscure state viewed as too far outside the American mainstream to be elected, a boring and indecisive Northeastern liberal Senator, a fraud who was about to be thrown out of office. As well as a House-Speaker who has viewed as a has been, and a General who almost started WWIII and who also appeared like he just walked out of Dr Strangelove. And not to mention Joemontum and a fmr. Senator who got defeated for reelection in a fairly red(Atlas color)state.

I mean is it me or does reelection primaries attract generally uninspiring/weak candidates? Especially on paper as a(disclaimer attached to this particular Atlas post)