Comments for Presidential Power

Comment on Obama’s Victory And The Power of Incumbency In The Modern Era by Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:45:52 +0000

David – There’s some debate among academics regarding just how many votes Perot cost Bush – note that it is Bush himself who claims that Perot cost him the election.

Comment on Obama’s Victory And The Power of Incumbency In The Modern Era by David T

David T — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:54:15 +0000

“Bush I’s 1992 reelection bid was undoubtedly negatively affected by the presence of a strong third-party candidate in the person of Ross Perot, who won nearly 20% of the popular vote.”

Exit polls do not support the idea that Perot cost Bush the election.

http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/

Comment on Obama’s Victory And The Power of Incumbency In The Modern Era by Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:44:29 +0000

AxelDC – Thanks for the comment. Actually, there is evidence suggesting that the rise of television – particularly local coverage – may be one factor that increased the size of the “incumbency advantage” for House candidates beginning in the 1960′s. By incumbency advantage, I mean the added benefit a House candidate gets by virtue of being the incumbent. As you note – and as several others have as well – it has never been easy to defeat an incumbent president, although I think, for the reasons I’ve mentioned, that it may be even more difficult in the modern age. We can debate whether that is true, and if so why.

Comment on Obama’s Victory And The Power of Incumbency In The Modern Era by AxelDC

AxelDC — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:38:02 +0000

It has always been difficult to defeat an incumbent President. Between 1900 and 1950, only 2 Presidents lost re-election: Taft (1912) and Hoover (1932). Taft was defeated by a split in the GOP, facing Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Hoover was victimized by the Great Crash of 1929. No one in his party even dared challenge him because they knew the GOP was toast. He lost to the affable FDR who won 4 terms.

Since WWII, only Ford, Carter and Bush have lost. Ford was never even elected VP, so he was hardly an incumbent and was facing the Watergate fallout. Carter saw huge GDP fall in 1980 as well as the Iran Hostage Crisis. Bush faced the 1991-1992 Recession. Carter and Bush were felled by Reagan and Clinton, two of our most charismatic leaders ever.

TV and the Cold War are not the factors. People like their leaders, unless they have a very good reason not to. That’s why re-election heavily favors incumbents, and not just on the Presidential level.

Comment on Obama’s Victory And The Power of Incumbency In The Modern Era by El Criador de Gorilas

El Criador de Gorilas — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:24:44 +0000

Yes, I think that basically having a lock on the nomination is what allows incumbents to focus earlier on the general election. In fact, I guess the only two recent incumbents who faced a moderately serious primary challenger (Carter and Bush 41) are the ones who didn’t get reelected. Of course, facing a challenger may have been a consequence of their weakness more than a cause in itself.

Ha, the nickname has a long story…