Incumbency: Is the 'incumbency advantage' overrated? Can it be a disadvantage?

[brucejoel99]

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.

This is true. With another week of campaigning, Ford would've managed to beat Carter in spite of everything, even with Watergate & its aftermath as well as the crappy economy.

[brucejoel99]

Incumbents are statistically more likely to win in presidential elections.

There are many factors included in this advantage: being more well-known by the public because of the media attention that their current position provides; the opportunity, going into an election, to use what their administration has accomplished as proof of their current success & potential; & the experience of winning a campaign & connections with interest groups that can aid them in winning another campaign, to name a few. These advantages encompass the overall image & power of the president that makes them difficult to contend with.