Could we see a streak of presidents winning reelection with less votes?

[President Johnson]

Barack Obama was the first president who won reelection to a second term with both fewer electoral votes and a smaller share of the popular vote than in his first presidential bid. Only Franklin Roosevelt did so as well, but only when he ran for a third and forth term. If Trump won in 2020, he probably wouldn't have reached 306 electoral votes again. And it's possible Joe Biden wins reelection with less than 306 electoral votes and somewhat less than 51.3%.

Could winning reelection with fewer votes become the new norm because presidents increasingly struggle to expand their coalition? And polarization better works for a candidate running for a first term, as some of his/her appeal is due to frustration with the party in power?

It's actually interesting presidents from the 19th century onward either won reelection with a larger mandate or - in case they lost support - were outright voted out of office.

[Bootes Void]

Obama 2012 is the only recent example so no it won’t happen

[dw93]

I can honestly see a streak of one term Presidents, if not in this decade, sometime in the next twenty or so years.

[Skill and Chance]

It's hard to see this for Biden.  Would probably require a scenario with a more mainline Republican and a populist right Nader after Trump stays out.  Otherwise, if Biden gets a non-trivially lower % of the PV, he loses.   

The idea that incumbent advantage was an artifact of the near-continuous 20th century economic boom and it's gone now does seem plausible to me.

So most presidents getting a lower percentage of the vote the second time seems reasonable to me,  but the effect would be to make reelection less likely, not create a bunch of back-to-back Obama 2012/Wilson 1916 scenarios.

[President Johnson]

It's hard to see this for Biden.  Would probably require a scenario with a more mainline Republican and a populist right Nader after Trump stays out.  Otherwise, if Biden gets a non-trivially lower % of the PV, he loses.   

The idea that incumbent advantage was an artifact of the near-continuous 20th century economic boom and it's gone now does seem plausible to me.

So most presidents getting a lower percentage of the vote the second time seems reasonable to me,  but the effect would be to make reelection less likely, not create a bunch of back-to-back Obama 2012/Wilson 1916 scenarios.

So you think Biden will either win reelection by more than he won in 2020, or lose outright? Assuming he runs again, of course.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I think the political cycle is moving faster than it once did, which will lead to more one-term presidents.  The "three presidents in 24 years" streak we recently had is a historical oddity.  Just look at the 20 years between the 1960 election and the 1980 election.  We saw 5 presidents in just 20 years (JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter), and none finished a full 8 years.

[Del Tachi]

Don't I have an old post where I already answered this question for you?  lol

The myth of the "winners' streak" demonstrates a misunderstanding of conditional probabilities, somewhat akin to the famous Monty Hall problem.  

Basically, an incumbent only has two possible outcomes for his reelection:  he either increases his margin or not.  If he does increase his margin then he is always reelected, definitionally.  This conditionality creates the seemingly unusual probability for presidents to win second terms with better margins.

If you remove the conditionality (i.e., treat all incumbent reelections the same) then you're left with nothing spectacular at all.  17/28 incumbent presidents seeking reelection have had decreased margins.

[Independents for George Santos]

We did also just have the somewhat bizarre situation of Trump improving his (PV) percentage and losing re-election (while obviously losing EVs, and ending up with a worse PV margin overall). Has anything like that happened before?

[TodayJunior]

Perhaps, but we could also see a hard impenetrable electoral college floor where Dems are winning three or four consecutive elections as well. About as likely since the GOP continues to quadruple down on everything they’re currently doing.

[President Johnson]

We did also just have the somewhat bizarre situation of Trump improving his (PV) percentage and losing re-election (while obviously losing EVs, and ending up with a worse PV margin overall). Has anything like that happened before?

When Grover Cleveland lost reelection in 1888 despite winning popular vote, his vote share just marginally decreased from 48.8% to 48.6%. In 1892, he was able to regain the presidency with 46.0% of the vote.

Woodrow Wilson came within a few thousand votes of losing California and with it the entire election in 1916, although he improved his popular vote share from 41.8% to 49.2%. Of course, 1912 was a three-way race.

[Skill and Chance]

We did also just have the somewhat bizarre situation of Trump improving his (PV) percentage and losing re-election (while obviously losing EVs, and ending up with a worse PV margin overall). Has anything like that happened before?

When Grover Cleveland lost reelection in 1888 despite winning popular vote, his vote share just marginally decreased from 48.8% to 48.6%. In 1892, he was able to regain the presidency with 46.0% of the vote.

Woodrow Wilson came within a few thousand votes of losing California and with it the entire election in 1916, although he improved his popular vote share from 41.8% to 49.2%. Of course, 1912 was a three-way race.

This is why I would focus on margins more than vote shares.  Having a high or low 3rd party vote is mostly out of the major party candidates' control.

It is notable the Cleveland got a better PV margin when he lost the EC than when he won it the first time.