Incumbency since the crash of 1929

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We've had an incumbent President getting his parties nomination and  running for re-election in every election since except for
1952, 1960, 1968, 1988, 2000

Of those

Sitting President had been President over 4 years, ran for his party's nomination but dropped out after not doing so well:
1952, 1968

Sitting Vice President got his party's Presidential nomination:
1960, 1968, 1988, 2000.

We haven't an election where the President or Vice President didn't run for President since 1928, and one where they didn't get the nomination since 1952.

[J. J.]

There is some of this pattern before the crash, 1864, 1872, 1888, 1892, 1900, 1904, 1912, 1916, 1924. 

It didn't happen in 1868, 1876, 1884, 1896, 1908, 1920, 1928.

This is basically a post Civil War pattern.  One problem is the traditional "No third term" rule.  Grant probably would have been re-nominated if he had wanted to be (1876). 

 Likewise, T. Roosevelt took himself out in 1904-5, but almost right after re-election.  We might have seen him stay until 1916.

[J. J.]

We've had an incumbent President getting his parties nomination and  running for re-election in every election since except for
1952, 1960, 1968, 1988, 2000

Of those

Sitting President had been President over 4 years, ran for his party's nomination but dropped out after not doing so well:
1952, 1968

Sitting Vice President got his party's Presidential nomination:
1960, 1968, 1988, 2000.

We haven't an election where the President or Vice President didn't run for President since 1928, and one where they didn't get the nomination since 1952.

There were no incumbants running in 52. (edit -> ) maybe I am wrong about that; did Truman run and then drop out?

Ah, that what he said in the post.

1976 is also problematic; there was an incumbent President running, but he was never elected P or VP.

[Redefeatbush04]

It will likely not  happen for the first time since 1928 in 2008 (I don't think Cheney the dick will run for president).

Well......technically it didn't happen in 2004 either because Al Gore was elected president and did not run (grumble grumble grumble). What's that? I should drop it!!! NEVER!!!!!!!!

[A18]

I am not convinced Gore won DC.

[YRABNNRM]

It will likely not  happen for the first time since 1928 in 2008 (I don't think Cheney the dick will run for president).

Well......technically it didn't happen in 2004 either because Al Gore was elected president and did not run (grumble grumble grumble). What's that? I should drop it!!! NEVER!!!!!!!!

Four+ years later and the Republicans have not apologized (plus I am not convinced Bush really won Ohio in 2004). They never will, so you are right to say that you will never drop it.

Why should we apologize for you being conspiracy theorists?







...and sore losers....

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It will likely not  happen for the first time since 1928 in 2008 (I don't think Cheney the dick will run for president).

Well......technically it didn't happen in 2004 either because Al Gore was elected president and did not run (grumble grumble grumble). What's that? I should drop it!!! NEVER!!!!!!!!

Four+ years later and the Republicans have not apologized (plus I am not convinced Bush really won Ohio in 2004). They never will, so you are right to say that you will never drop it.

Why should we apologize for you being conspiracy theorists?







...and sore losers....

It's not a conspiracy theory that more people went to the polls in Florida 2000 planning on voting for Gore. It's not a conspiracy theory that many blacks were denied from voting for supposed felonies, with some conviction dates listed in the future, one in 2006. It's not a conspiracy that the SCOTUS stopped the recount. It's not a conspiracy that invalid Republican absentee ballots were counted.

[J. J.]

It will likely not  happen for the first time since 1928 in 2008 (I don't think Cheney the dick will run for president).

Well......technically it didn't happen in 2004 either because Al Gore was elected president and did not run (grumble grumble grumble). What's that? I should drop it!!! NEVER!!!!!!!!

Four+ years later and the Republicans have not apologized (plus I am not convinced Bush really won Ohio in 2004). They never will, so you are right to say that you will never drop it.

Why should we apologize for you being conspiracy theorists?







...and sore losers....

It's not a conspiracy theory that more people went to the polls in Florida 2000 planning on voting for Gore. It's not a conspiracy theory that many blacks were denied from voting for supposed felonies, with some conviction dates listed in the future, one in 2006. It's not a conspiracy that the SCOTUS stopped the recount. It's not a conspiracy that invalid Republican absentee ballots were counted.

Yes it is, as people do make up or change their minds in the voting booths.

It, unfortunately is a conspiracy theory that Al Gore didn't immediately ask for a recount in the entire state.  Was Al Gore in on your conspiracy too?

[Redefeatbush04]

It will likely not  happen for the first time since 1928 in 2008 (I don't think Cheney the dick will run for president).

Well......technically it didn't happen in 2004 either because Al Gore was elected president and did not run (grumble grumble grumble). What's that? I should drop it!!! NEVER!!!!!!!!

Four+ years later and the Republicans have not apologized (plus I am not convinced Bush really won Ohio in 2004). They never will, so you are right to say that you will never drop it.

Why should we apologize for you being conspiracy theorists?







...and sore losers....

It's not a conspiracy theory that more people went to the polls in Florida 2000 planning on voting for Gore. It's not a conspiracy theory that many blacks were denied from voting for supposed felonies, with some conviction dates listed in the future, one in 2006. It's not a conspiracy that the SCOTUS stopped the recount. It's not a conspiracy that invalid Republican absentee ballots were counted.

Yes it is, as people do make up or change their minds in the voting booths.

It, unfortunately is a conspiracy theory that Al Gore didn't immediately ask for a recount in the entire state.  Was Al Gore in on your conspiracy too?

In the entire state? That is because different areas record votes in different ways (different voting methods). Afterwards he asked for a recount in the entire state to please whining republicans. How is this a conspiracy? Oh ..... and how come the predominately jewish voting precincts in West Palm Beach county voted so heavily for Pat Buchnan. What kind of sick and twisted sh**t is that

[muon2]

If you go back to 1860 and the current two parties running for President, then the incumbent President has been on the ballot in 23 of the 37 races (62%). Of those races the incumbent won the popular vote 17 times (74%). On the flip side when there was no incumbent President on the ballot the party out of power took the popular vote 8 out of 14 times (57%). If you only predicted the result of the Presidential election vote based on an incumbent on the ballot or not you would be correct 68% of the time. Not bad.

However, you can do better. Ask if the incumbent party had significant challenge to its nominee in the primaries, and use that to decide who would get the most votes. Since 1860, you would be correct 34 out of 37 times -- 92%!

Note, since I was using a national measure, I compared the prediction to the popular vote winner. Any EV prediction more naturally would need to take into account more state-to-state differences, so should be less predictable by a single national measure.

[TomC]

I think this sucks- it means too many of us are too complacent with the names we know. Sometimes a President deserves renomination and election, sometimes we could do better. This thread describes a patriarchical system that serves the politicians and not the people.

[Erc]

I think this sucks- it means too many of us are too complacent with the names we know. Sometimes a President deserves renomination and election, sometimes we could do better. This thread describes a patriarchical system that serves the politicians and not the people.

Should FDR have been renominated in 1936?  1940?  1944?

Truman in 48? 52?

Johnson in 64? 68?

Carter in 80?

Clinton in 96?

[TomC]

Should FDR have been renominated in 1936? yes  1940? no  1944?no

Truman in 48? yes 52? no

Johnson in 64? yes 68? no

Carter in 80? no (Sorry, Jimmy)

Clinton in 96? yes

And while it's clear that you are starting a partisan argument since you only posted dem Presidents. I won't bite- I put the health of our democracy above partisan politics. Sorry if you can't see that.

[Erc]

Should FDR have been renominated in 1936? yes  1940? no  1944?no

Truman in 48? yes 52? no

Johnson in 64? yes 68? no

Carter in 80? no (Sorry, Jimmy)

Clinton in 96? yes

And while it's clear that you are starting a partisan argument since you only posted dem Presidents. I won't bite- I put the health of our democracy above partisan politics. Sorry if you can't see that.

I put Democratic Presidents only in order to avoid a partisan debate--you're a Democrat, so it made little sense to have you express your opinion on who the Republicans should have chosen.

And, as for your answers...

There was a strong movement in '40 to prevent a third term for Roosevelt, but it ultimately failed.

Opposition to Truman led to him pulling out in '52, same with Johnson in '68...

And Ted Kennedy tried to replace Carter, but Chappaquiddick ultimately did him in.