Which race was most winnable against an incumbent prez?

[Sir Mohamed]

From the last 3 elections that had an incumbent prez reelected, which was most winnable for the challenger party?

My answer is 2004. It was already close and Kerry was a lackluster candidate, who came off as stiff technocrat without a clear vision. He was highly qualified to be commander in chief, but with a better candidate and campaign, 2004 was winnable for Dems. Iraq was already a mess and the ecomomy not doing particulary well.

2012 is doubtful with any GOPer, but still more likely than 1996. Clinton's reelection was safe.

[darklordoftech]

2004. Kerry should have talked about Bush’s dismissal of pre-9/11 warnings and Tora Bora.

[Orser67]

2004 was definitely the most winnable, in part because it was the closest irl. Bush's approval ratings were in freefall by 2004, and he only won the popular vote by about 2.5% (he won the tipping point state by 2.1%). Kerry was a decent enough candidate, but I think that he might have been able to beat Bush if he had run a truly excellent campaign.

In 2012, Obama had to deal with a bad economy and was able to win in large because people still blamed his predecessor for it. The GOP field was pretty bad that year, and imo Romney (as a former executive for a management consulting company) had a pretty bad background for the times. On the other hand, Obama won the tipping point state by 5+ points, so it seems possible to me that no GOP candidate could have won.

1996 was on a different level. I don't care for some of Clinton's policies (he was too centrist for me), but he handled the two years after the 1994 mid-terms excellently and never gave Dole a chance.

[lfromnj]

The one where the median state was only around 1.8 points compared to 5 and 10 points.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

The only one in which, if the popular vote had been tied, the incumbent prez would've lost.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Kerry overperformed in 2004, a generic Democrat would have lost by more. Romney underperformed and let himself be painted as an elitist. 2012 was absolutely winnable.

[Redban]

1996 -- nope, Bubba was too popular. Nobody was beating him.

2004 -- Democrats 100% had a chance, and they should've taken it. Bush wasn't popular, and he still had heat for 2000, with people suggesting he stole the election. Kerry was a bad candidate. I remember there was stuff about his military background (Swiftboats, was it?)

2012 -- I say no. People were still angry at Bush, just as they were in 2008, so the Republicans had a handicap. And Obama was still a great politician, a great speaker, with a likeable personality. He still had the aura of being the 1st African-American President. He had some good stuff to cite ("General Motors is alive, Osama Bin Laden is dead!"). He had a strong coalition in 2008 that was difficult to break 4 years later.

[Epaminondas]

Kerry was a bad candidate. I remember there was stuff about his military background (Swiftboats, was it?)

Imagine 16 years later still believing a cocktail of discredited lies by GOP astroturfing groups.

The US conservative slander machine is ruining the world.

[dw93]

1996 wasn't winnable for the GOP. If it were, they would've mustered a stronger candidate than Bob Dole and Perot wouldn't have gotten the 8 or 9% that he got. The economy was strong, stability abroad, and Newt shot the GOP in the foot with the shutdown, letting Clinton successfully tie Dole to the antics of Gingrich.

2004 was winnable. Bush ran a much weaker campaign in 2004 than he did in 2000 (at least IMHO), was the first President since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net job loss, the recovery from the "Dotcom" recession was weak, and public opinion for the Iraq War, while still supported by a slight majority, was starting to sour. Had it not been for the gay marriage ballot initiatives and Kerry hadn't flip flopped repeatedly on Iraq, I think he would've won.

Contrary to popular belief on here, I think 2012 was winnable for the GOP. Obama's approval ratings were in the 30s by the fall of 2011 and unemployment was still high (it didn't fall below 8% until late 2012). Romney was just the wrong candidate to run that year, and the rest of the field, outside of John Huntsman was even worse. It was Romney's laughably bad candidacy, the Tea Party alienating everyone outside of the Tea Party, the memory of Bush being fresh, a strong response to Hurricane Sandy, and good job reports coming at just the right time (summer/fall of 2012) that decisively carried Obama over the finish line in the end.

So to answer the question 2004, but 2012 wasn't out of reach for the party out of power.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

If you read many of the news articles published back in late-2011, they sounded very similar to the articles that were being published in 2015 and 2016, and they made many warnings to the Democrats that eventually did come true in 2016.

The anger was there in 2012, and it should have been a much closer election. But I do think the additional four years (2013-2017) of people stagnating or falling behind were needed for people to really demand change and really set the stage for Trump. But it does make me wonder how the 2012 election would have been different if the Romney campaign had done better, or if Trump had run then.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

2004

2012




1996

[538Electoral]

2004.