Rate the fundamentals for election cycles an incumbent lost from most to least favorable
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:45:09 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)
  Rate the fundamentals for election cycles an incumbent lost from most to least favorable
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Rate the fundamentals for election cycles an incumbent lost from most to least favorable  (Read 356 times)
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,358


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 13, 2021, 02:55:40 PM »

for the Incumbent.


Id say:

Would be close without a third-party candidate and in the case of 1992 a weaker dem candidate as well:
1. 1912
2. 1992

Should have been a 2008 style defeat for the incumbent party:
3. 2020
4. 1976

Very hard to see the incumbent get more than 150 EV in any circumstance:
5. 1980
6. 1932
Logged
Independents for George Santos
Seef
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,582
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: 1.57

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2021, 08:32:05 PM »

I'm not sure how exactly to compare the first and second groups. Bush seemed like a lock for re-election until it was the economy, stupid, while both Ford and Trump made what seemed like surefire losses into nailbiters that could have been won under the right circumstances. Taft I'm not quite as familiar with, but I'd imagine if Teddy had endorsed the GOP would have stayed united enough to squeeze past even a popular and progressive-leaning Wilson. I'd probably rate them as follows:

1. A point or two in the PVI short of being the greatest comeback in political history: '76
2. His race to lose, and he did everything he could to lose it: '20
3. His race to lose, until the circumstances changed and made it an uphill fight: '92
4. Would have needed every possible thing to go right, and even then it wouldn't have been enough: '80
5. Screwed the moment TR got involved: '12
6. DOA no matter what: '32
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2021, 09:52:34 AM »

for the Incumbent.


Id say:

Would be close without a third-party candidate and in the case of 1992 a weaker dem candidate as well:
1. 1912
2. 1992

Should have been a 2008 style defeat for the incumbent party:
3. 2020
4. 1976

Very hard to see the incumbent get more than 150 EV in any circumstance:
5. 1980
6. 1932

Not sure about 1912 and 1992. I think Taft and HW Bush were doomed no matter what. For sure, the EC would have been closer without a 3rd candidate. I just don't believe it would have been that close.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,358


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2021, 10:01:45 AM »

for the Incumbent.


Id say:

Would be close without a third-party candidate and in the case of 1992 a weaker dem candidate as well:
1. 1912
2. 1992

Should have been a 2008 style defeat for the incumbent party:
3. 2020
4. 1976

Very hard to see the incumbent get more than 150 EV in any circumstance:
5. 1980
6. 1932

Not sure about 1912 and 1992. I think Taft and HW Bush were doomed no matter what. For sure, the EC would have been closer without a 3rd candidate. I just don't believe it would have been that close.

The tipping point state in 1992 was Clinton 4.7 points so I think with no Perot and a weaker dem nominee, I think it’s a tossup race . 1912 It depends on how many Teddy voters Taft and Wilson would get , and given even 1916, it would seem like Taft would get the vast majority of them .



 
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2021, 02:10:13 PM »

1932 is obviously the least favorable environment for an incumbent in recent history, followed by 2020 and then 1980.  1992 comes next to round out the top 4.

1976 is somewhat non-comparable to the others because Ford, despite being an incumbent, had never been elected to the presidency (or even the vice presidency) before.  The economy was in relatively good shape. 

Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2021, 06:04:45 PM »

Based on how things looked a year prior to the election (minus 1912, as I can't answer that truthfully):

1. 1992 (despite the recession)
2. 2020
3. 1980 (the hostage crisis initially gave Carter a rally around the flag effect)
4. 1976
5. 1932


Based on how things looked six months prior to the election (again, minus 1912)

1. 2020 (Trump still had a majority support on his handling of the pandemic as well as the economy)
2. 1992
3. 1976
4. 1980
5. 1932

Based on how things looked on election day (minus 1912):

1. 1976
2. 1992
3. 2020
4. 1980
5. 1932

My overall take on these elections:

1. 1912: I didn't rank it as I don't know enough about the economic and international situation of 1911 and 1912. I am of the belief however that Taft might've won the election without TR in the race, given the results of the 1916 election and given the fact that Taft wasn't that conservative of a President.

2. 1932: A small grain of rice would've beaten Hoover in a landslide. Enough said.

3. 1976: I think the end result had more to do with Carter running a flawed campaign in the general election, the Democrats still not fully recovering from the fallout of the late 60's, and Ford running a surprisingly good campaign despite being an unelected incumbent and one that never ran for any national or even statewide office, than the fundamentals being favorable. Keep in mind, Ford not only had the fallout from Watergate and the pardon, he also had a sour economy for most (though it did improve through 1976) of his Presidency up to that point, and had a serious primary challenge from Reagan. Those are anything but favorable circumstances for an incumbent.

4. 1980: What little chances Carter had were due to a rally around the flag effect early in the Hostage crisis not fading too quickly and Reagan being viewed by enough people as an extremist. Factor both of those out, is loss would've been more apparent than it was, as prior to the hostage crisis a Kennedy primary challenge was serious enough for some to believe he could deny Carter the nomination.

5. 1992: If the election were held a year earlier, Bush would've won and won in a landslide due to his many Foreign Policy successes. That said, through the course of 1992, the focus of the country shifted to domestic issues, namely the economy, where Bush was vulnerable. Buchanan launching a primary challenge at all should've been a warning sign, but it wasn't until a strong showing in New Hampshire by Buchanan that the Bush inner circle even began to take the prospect that they might be vulnerable seriously. Then came the Perot factor, and while I agree with Old School Republican that Perot took slightly more from Bush, Perot not being in the race would've at most given Bush CO, MT, and GA, which would've still left Clinton at a decisive (though closer) win. It was clear after Perot dropped out in early summer (only to re enter in the fall) that Bush was toast as Clinton was leading big, and at times by double digits.

6. 2020: Like Bush 41, if the election were held a year earlier, Trump would've won, though unlike with Bush, a Trump win by no means would've been by a landslide or even a decisive win due to polarization and Trump being, well, Trump. Like Carter, Trump was dealt a crisis (COVID) at the end of his term that initially caused most of the country to rally behind him, only to have that support drop like a rock due to said crisis dragging on. The difference between Trump and Carter on this however is that Carter did meaningfully try to get the hostages free and worked to do so till his final moments as President, while Trump spread misinformation and politicized the pandemic, and didn't do much of anything on his part to curtail it. The Trump campaign's only messages on the campaign trail were "wasn't that pre COVID economy great" and a very muffled, authoritarian message/response about the riots, and with regards to the former message they offered no solutions to make the economy great again. The Trump campaign failed to adapted to the reality that emerged in the 8 months leading up to the election and they lost it accordingly, and the only reason it was a close election was because of polarization giving Trump a higher floor than he should have had , enough of an anti lockdown vote (lockdowns that Trump had little to no control over), and the far left of the Democratic party shooting the entire Democratic party in the foot with "Defund the Police" as the summer was rocked with rioting.

Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2021, 10:32:43 AM »

for the Incumbent.


Id say:

Would be close without a third-party candidate and in the case of 1992 a weaker dem candidate as well:
1. 1912
2. 1992

Should have been a 2008 style defeat for the incumbent party:
3. 2020
4. 1976

Very hard to see the incumbent get more than 150 EV in any circumstance:
5. 1980
6. 1932

Not sure about 1912 and 1992. I think Taft and HW Bush were doomed no matter what. For sure, the EC would have been closer without a 3rd candidate. I just don't believe it would have been that close.

The tipping point state in 1992 was Clinton 4.7 points so I think with no Perot and a weaker dem nominee, I think it’s a tossup race . 1912 It depends on how many Teddy voters Taft and Wilson would get , and given even 1916, it would seem like Taft would get the vast majority of them .
 

I don't think HW Bush would have maintained a real chance in 1992 against any somewhat competent Dem candidate. He was running for a 4th GOP term and the economy was in a downturn. While his foreign policy experience was widely recognized, the economic situation and his image has being out of touch would have made any reelection a challenging task.

As far as Taft is concerned, I read many times he wasn't very popular outside the conservative GOP wing. He would have lost one on one against Wilson, though TR would have won.
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 0.039 seconds with 11 queries.