Was Obama weaker as incumbent

[Motorcity]

Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Dubya, and Trump were all stronger running for re-election.

Incumbents typically win. They don’t have to deal with a primary, have a larger campaign network to utilize, a record, and the American people being hesitant to change course midstream

The exceptions were Carter and HW, who lost.

Trump is odd. He was the incumbent and had far more funding and institutional support compared to 2016. He should have won, but 2016 and 2020 were both nail biters that could have went either way. And it’s almost universally agreed upon that Trump was more feared in 2020 and given higher chances. So he was stronger than 2016. That said this thread isn’t a debate on this.

My question, was Obama weaker in 2012?

He lost vote share. He got less votes and less states than in 2008, while Romney got more votes than McCain. Polling was much worst for Obama in 2012. In 2008, he was expected to win big long before November. In 2012, polls showed a horse race but were off

At the same time, 2008 was a bad year for the country. So it was bad for the incumbent party. There were several people who voted democrat that one time because of the sh**tstorm caused by Bush. Plus, Obama was uniquely charismatic. This was the last time a jfk like figure could win over people from the other party. Plus many Republicans didn’t care for McCain.

So, the argument could be made that Obama in 2012 was merely reverting back to how things should be. Democrats weren’t going to win Michigan by 15+ points again, but it’s okay cuz Obama still won comfortable

So, was Obama weaker as an incumbent or was he stronger if you remove the many one off events of 2008

[dw93]

I think Obama was vulnerable and could've plausibly lost that election, but the GOP didn't have anyone at that time that could match his charisma or his personal likability. On top of that, I think he and the campaign knew they were vulnerable and thus took control of the narrative early, defined Romney early, and ran a very strong campaign, I dare say Obama's 2012 campaign was better than his 2008 campaign for this reason. Obama over performed  the fundamentals in 2012 and did so against a candidate that was more liked by the GOP base than McCain, and was even liked more than Trump in 2016 by a decent share of Republicans, while I'd argue he somewhat under performed them in 2008. Plus, I just think there were enough people that weren't willing to put a Republican in the White House with the financial crisis and the Bush Presidency as a whole still being fresh. I think Obama's margins in states like WI, MI, IA, PA, as well as Obama's close win in OH reflect this, and these were states Trump won, and in the case of IA and OH won in big in, 4 years later. In other words, despite a weak recovery, there were more than enough people willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

2012 Obama, IMHO, was in a similar position to GW Bush in 2004 in a sense that both were vulnerable (the closeness of 2004 against a fairly mediocre John Kerry reflect this), but both were somewhat favored to win despite vulnerabilities because a lack of a strong candidate from the opposition party, and enough middle of the road voters, for one reason or another, giving the incumbent the benefit of the doubt with regards to the crisis they were dealt early in their Presidencies (the economy for Obama, 9/11 for Bush).

I must add that as for Trump, he wasn't a strong incumbent.  Prior to COVID, the only thing he had going for him was a growing economy that he inherited it and through sheer dumb luck hadn't ed up, and any possible divisions that might've (but didn't thanks to COVID) emerged within the Democratic Party. Factor one of those, the former in particular out, given the closeness of 2016 he would've been toast. As for his odds after the COVID outbreak, he had the opportunity to rally enough of the country behind him to sail to re election, possibly expanding his 2016 map and even a narrow popular vote win, but instead dropped the ball big time with the response to the pandemic as well as his authoritarian response to not even the riots, but to the protests themselves. His first debate performance and his subsequent COVID diagnosis were only the final nails in his coffin. It was only as close as it was in the end because of dangerous amounts of polarization (and this would've been the case in any scenario where he lost in the absence of COVID, which I honestly don't think he would've), enough anti lockdown votes, and an honest to God cult following. If Donald Trump were somehow President 40 or even 60 years prior to his actual Presidency, he would've been landslided out.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Obama's smaller margin was due to the shaky economy (it was improving but slowly and unemployment was still high) and the fact that GWB's presidency wasn't AS MUCH of an albatross for Republicans as it was in 2008. Also the Republican base was more motivated in 2012 because they thought they could win...not so much in 2008.

[Skill and Chance]

I think the primary story here is declining incumbent advantage over the past 25 years with increasing polarization.  There was once a large group of people who reflexively voted based on economic conditions during the election year.   A 20th century incumbent usually won by 10+ if popular and got blown out by 10+ if unpopular.  Even Clinton 1996 was unremarkable by Reagan/Nixon/LBJ/Ike standards.

[Sir Mohamed]

Obama's smaller margin was due to the shaky economy (it was improving but slowly and unemployment was still high) and the fact that GWB's presidency wasn't AS MUCH of an albatross for Republicans as it was in 2008. Also the Republican base was more motivated in 2012 because they thought they could win...not so much in 2008.

This and dw93's post pretty much explains it. I might add that Obama with 52.9% of the NPV and 365 EVs came from a very high level in 2008 that made it extremely difficult to match or even surpass. And btw, the same states were "just" 359 EVs worth in 2012. If the financial crash didn't happen 2 months before the election, Obama would have won a narrower victory over McCain. The 2012 result would then have been enough to surpass 2008.

[Skill and Chance]

Obama's smaller margin was due to the shaky economy (it was improving but slowly and unemployment was still high) and the fact that GWB's presidency wasn't AS MUCH of an albatross for Republicans as it was in 2008. Also the Republican base was more motivated in 2012 because they thought they could win...not so much in 2008.

This and dw93's post pretty much explains it. I might add that Obama with 52.9% of the NPV and 365 EVs came from a very high level in 2008 that made it extremely difficult to match or even surpass. And btw, the same states were "just" 359 EVs worth in 2012. If the financial crash didn't happen 2 months before the election, Obama would have won a narrower victory over McCain. The 2012 result would then have been enough to surpass 2008.

An EV/PV split in favor of Obama would have been a very plausible outcome in 2008 without the financial crisis!

[Agonized-Statism]

I doubt he was ever in serious danger of losing to Romney, but yes, he was weaker. His loss of 3.6 million votes from 2008 could be explained in part by disillusionment from the left, which had expected a much more transformational presidency. By 2011, you had the Occupy protests and Sanders very nearly challenging Obama in the primaries until Harry Reid convinced him not to (article below). The emergence of a more appealing grassroots conservatism, manifesting primarily through the Tea Party, may have also taken some white working class voters that broke for Obama in 2008. Neither the incumbent's inherited economic issues nor foreign policy disasters were resolved quickly enough for voters' liking, so he could neither expand on nor maintain his impressive 2008 performance (how do you do better than Indiana?), but the Republicans hadn't yet figured out how to tap into that widespread disillusionment as they did in 2016. Also, Romney himself had a slightly better campaign for the times than McCain- while many saw him as an unprincipled flip-flopper, his business background could better appeal to petite bourgeoisie and "big gov sucks" types, and he never giddily sang "Bomb Iran" on the campaign trail. Despite all the rehabilitation McCain got from Democrats during the Trump presidency, at the time plenty of voters were less concerned over Romney starting World War III or producing a President Palin.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/sanders-obama-primary-challenge/606709/

[TML]

Yes, because he campaigned like FDR but instead governed like Bill Clinton. This turned off the Democratic base significantly.

[Chips]

Debatable. Yes he did lose ground. But a lot of that simply came from the fact that he already set an extremely high bar in 2008 that just wouldn't be replicated in 2012 unless the economy was skyrocketing upwards which it wasn't. He still held 26/28 states and 332/365 electoral votes.

[Pericles]

Anyone would be weaker after presiding over four years of the GFC. Winning, and comfortably too, was an impressive achievement. If he had Clinton's economy, we can never know how successful he might have been.

[Sir Mohamed]

Another factor here is that Obama won really big in 2008; a modern-day landslide in a closely divided nation. It was hard to improve on that performance, even with the incumbency factor. Also, he begun his term with extreme high expectations that nobody ever could have fullfilled. So some disappointment setting in was natural.

That said, 2012 was still a very solid performance, especially compared to 2016 and 2020. And perhaps 2024 as well.

[Jim Crow]

It's hard to improve from 2008 and in 2012 he also ran against a better candidate.  Another factor is that he under-performed as president in the minds of objective voters.  Things weren't great in our country.

[Progressive Pessimist]

That's only because he won by what can probably be considered a landslide in hindsight and faced different circumstances as an incumbent in 2012 compared to a relative outsider with an idealistic vision in 2008. Despite that, his 2012 performance in many battleground states (and some that are no longer battlegrounds) will probably never be exceeded by a Democrat ever again, even as there were significant swings right from 2008.

He is, and always will be, a once-in-a-lifetime candidate.