Difficulty of past reelection campaigns
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:52:52 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Difficulty of past reelection campaigns
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Difficulty of past reelection campaigns  (Read 639 times)
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 09, 2014, 08:25:08 PM »

Inspired by this thread, I decided to rank all the historical presidential campaigns based on how difficult it was, IMO, for the President or ex-President to be reelected. I took into account the difficulty of the IRL general election, the difficulty of renomination, and the difficulty of the election under hypothetical alternative scenarios. Would be interested to hear if anyone thinks I'm way off-base with any of these, or if I missed any (I think I was pretty comprehensive!).

Hardest

Van Buren 1848: The definition of quixotic, even if he had received the regular Democratic nomination in some states.
Truman 1952: Had close to zero chance of renomination, might've lost every state vs. Ike.
Taft 1912: Difficult renomination, plus Roosevelt's third-party candidacy made reelection impossible.
Roosevelt 1912: Couldn't win GOP nomination, reelection impossible with Taft still on GOP ticket.
Tyler 1844: Hard to say, may have had a chance vs. Van Buren and Clay if the election went to the House.
Hoover 1932: Could only have had outside chance of winning in a rematch with Al Smith.
Cleveland 1896: Had close to zero chance of renomination, Populist gains weren't enough to offset gold Dem weakness.
Johnson 1868: Difficult renomination, unpopular in the North, GOP strength in the South due to Reconstruction.
Fillmore 1852: Difficult renomination, likely too unpopular and Whigs too divided to win.
Fillmore 1856: Only if proposed joint ticket with Democrats had panned out, unlikely due to ideological incompatibility.
Adams 1800: Likely too unpopular to win even if not severely hurt by Hamilton's antics.
Adams 1828: Unpopular, "corrupt bargain" charge likely too potent to win vs. Jackson
Van Buren 1844: Could only be renominated if 2/3rds rule weren't reinstated, little chance due to Tyler's candidacy.
Roosevelt 1916: Had close to zero chance of renomination, extreme pro-war position very unpopular.
Pierce 1856: Difficult renomination, unpopular, but would've had good chance in general due to Whig split.
Carter 1980: Somewhat difficult renomination, would've only had a chance if Iran hostage rescue had worked.
Grant 1880: Difficult renomination and unpopular, would've provoked an early Mugwump revolt.
Grant 1876: Difficult renomination and unpopular, but would've benefited from GOP Reconstruction governments.
Johnson 1968: Possibly difficult renomination, unpopular, a chance with a strong Wallace result or vs. Romney/Reagan.
Van Buren 1840: Unpopular personally, but election close due to Jackson's continuing popularity.
Harrison 1892: Would've had difficult renomination vs. McKinley, unpopular, hurt by Populist strength.
Bush 1992: Unpopular, hurt/overshadowed by Perot, a good chance vs. weaker Democrat like Cuomo.
Arthur 1884: Little chance of renomination, but decent chance of victory in the general.
Cleveland 1888: Hurt by massive GOP voter fraud and Tammany Hall sitting out the election, but still had decent chance.
Ford 1976: Difficult renomination, might've won general if not for Nixon pardon and/or bad debate performances.

Truman 1948: Unpopular, hurt by third parties, saved by Dewey's awful campaign.
Wilson 1916: Republicans still "natural majority," but Wilson saved due to Teddy Roosevelt's unhinged pro-war campaign.
Bush 2004: Potential landslide due to 9/11 and <5% unemployment, made close due to the already-unpopular Iraq War.
Obama 2012: Polarizing and unpopular, saved by protracted GOP primaries that produced weak candidate.
Lincoln 1864: Saved by Atlanta and Frémont withdrawal. Had fake South EV plan, but might make war spread to North.
Cleveland 1892: Harrison administration unpopular, aided by strong Populist showing despite Tammany sitting out again.
Roosevelt 1940: Unpopular, seriously lucked out when GOP nominated weakest possible candidate.
Madison 1812: Uncomfortably close for Madison, but Clinton would've had a hard time getting 50%+1 EVs.
McKinley 1900: An anti-imperialist Democrat other than WJB might've won with the backing of Carnegie and others.
Grant 1872: Lucked out when Liberal Republican revolt nominated weak candidate and ran fusion ticket with Democrats.
Clinton 1996: Saved by strong economy, smart "triangulation" positioning, gov't shutdown, and weak opponent.
Roosevelt 1944: Still popular, but voters fatigued after 3 terms and GOP ran strong campaign. Saved by WWII.
Reagan 1984: Very popular, weak opponent. Gary Hart would make the margin more respectable.
Nixon 1972: Very popular, very weak opponent. Scoop Jackson would make the margin more respectable.
Jackson 1832: Very popular, opponents unpopular, divided, unhinged, and incoherent.
Eisenhower 1956: No Democrat could've beaten Ike. His half-baked idea to run as an indy might've made it interesting.
Roosevelt 1936: Liberty League ran GOP campaign since GOP activist base gone. Long might've made it interesting.
Roosevelt 1904: Democrats ran a paper candidate. WJB or even a serious gold Democrat might've done respectably.
Roosevelt 1920: Assured of victory. Unfortunately for him, not in death.
Johnson 1964: Sympathy vote, 3% unemployment, weak opponent, underperformed considering near 80% in early polls.
Jefferson 1804: At least the Federalists put up a candidate in this one. More than they could say for 1812/1820/1824.
Coolidge 1924: Very popular, and only LaFollette prevented largest landslide ever after a farcical Democratic convention.
Monroe 1820: Elections are easy with no opposition, although a serious Federalist candidate might've won several states.
Washington 1792: Elections are easy with no opposition, and no opponent could've beaten Washington in any state.

Easiest
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
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 0.028 seconds with 11 queries.