Obama 2012: Never Underestimate the Power of Incumbency
Karl Rove recently wrote a widely circulated op-ed titled “Why Obama Is Likely to Lose in 2012.”
Here is the opening paragraph:
President Barack Obama is likely to be defeated in 2012. The reason is that he faces four serious threats. The economy is very weak and unlikely to experience a robust recovery by Election Day. Key voter groups have soured on him. He’s defending unpopular policies. And he’s made bad strategic decisions.
Yes, it’s all true, and Rove backs up each reason with relevant data. However, he fails to emphasize the one overwhelming advantage President Obama has against his 2012 opponent: the power, glory, and respect that is accorded the person who holds the title “president of the United States.”
Historically, holders of this esteemed title have a 67.7% chance of re-election. As a co-writer and I noted earlier this year, and as was mentioned later by CBS News, “in the last 56 U.S. presidential elections, 31 have involved incumbents; 21 of those candidates have won more than one term.”
Since Karl Rove knows well the reverence accorded the president, he does mention incumbency once in this context:
While he needs to raise money and organize, he decided to be a candidate this year rather than president. He has thus unnecessarily abandoned one of incumbency’s great strengths, which is the opportunity to govern and distance himself from partisan politics until next spring.
It is Rove’s belief that President Obama’s decision to act less presidential and more like a candidate, while governing as a partisan in 2011, will help thwart his re-election chances.
This is where I respectfully disagree with Mr. Rove.
In fact, I believe Obama’s carefully calculated partisan behavior will actually increase his chances of winning a second term.
Since he took office in January 2009, President Obama has never stopped campaigning. He derives his energy, his very life blood, from being out on the trail, speaking to crowds large or small, and “pressing the flesh.”
During his entire presidency thus far, Obama has wanted us to think all those visits to factories, schools, campuses, town halls, and military bases were 100% official. The truth is the backdrop and especially the choice of state were always political. This was Obama’s way of keeping the campaign going.
Having been a “spy” since 2008 on Obama’s infamous campaign e-mail list “Organizing for America,” I have seen firsthand, sometimes on a daily basis during key moments of his presidency, how the campaign truly never ended.
“Organizing for America,” supposedly 13 million strong, has officially re-tooled for the 2012 campaign and is now called Obama for America.
Like a good salesman, Obama can not stop selling his product — himself — long after the sale is finalized. It’s as if he knows his God-given talents are more suited to “campaigner in chief” than the expected chief executive/commander in chief.
As Rove suggests, Obama should, as an incumbent, “distance himself from partisan politics.” But President Obama has never distanced himself from partisan politics. Obama has always been and continues to be a bitter partisan Democrat.
So why should he stop now with 2012 around the corner?
All Obama will continue to do up until November 6, 2012, is recite the same old red-meat rhetoric about how those scary Republicans messed things up so bad; thus, why on earth would you let them back into the White House?
I think Obama’s mouth is starting to get him in trouble. That June 29 presser was edging into “malaise” territory. It shouldn’t take much for us ingrates to provoke something very nasty and off-putting from him before long.
And do you think Bachmann and Palin are going to sit by quietly while he campaigns?
No, I think this campaign will be noisy all around, with Obama’s dissing and scolding sounding stale and empty.
What’s most amusing is that people actually pay Karl Rove for his opinion. Rove’s prediction that Obama will likely not be reelected to a second term holds about as much water as his prediction of a permanent Republican majority. 2012 will not be 2010. America has seen the agenda of the GOP. That being to destroy the middle class.
My predictions: Obama is handily reelected. Democrats take back or come close to taking back the house. ACA is upheld by SCOTUS 5/4, Kennedy is the swing vote. And more to come . . .
It’s gonna be a rough eight-yeras for you guys. Stock up on blood pressure medicine, you’re gonna need it.
Yes — if you extend your survey back to the founding of the Republic. But in post-World-War-II America, we see the following:
– Truman deciding not to run for re-election (remember, he was elevated to the office by FDR’s death, and was exempted from the provisions of the Twenty-Second Amendment) in 1952;
– Kennedy dying in office;
– Johnson deciding not to run for re-election in 1968;
– Ford defeated by Carter in 1976;
– Carter defeated by Reagan in 1980;
– Bush the Elder defeated by Clinton in 1992.
So: Out of ten postwar presidents who’ve had the option of running for re-election, six either failed to run or were defeated at the polls. That presents a somewhat different picture of the power of incumbency.
The incumbeint’s advantages are not inconsiderable. However, they are not so mighty as to negate the disadvantages that can accrue from a horrible performance in office. A challenger to the incumbent can challenge him on his record; this, the incumbent cannot do in response. Which also suggests that we could see an increase in the presidential candidacies of legislators in the near future.
It is not that difficult to read between the lines of Myra’s scary diatribe.
Her coded message is obvious: “If we want to have even a chance of defeating Obama, we have (MUST!) to nominate someone who is truly serious and not that air-head, whom I have already mentioned four times in the past but whose name I shall not mention now in that particular article out of fear of being clobbered nearly to my literary death again.
But… you know whom I have in mind…”
You have a serious obsession with Sarah Palin. I would suggest you seek professional help.
And this is a serious ad hominem attack, you may want to check the guidelines for posting again
I’m very healthy Myra. I was once married with communism and now they are trying to do that to me again in Aussie. I’m better prepared than you.
However, I’ve also learned to read your mind. He, he, he…
Bogdan;
We have “Commander in Chief Lite”; You have “Fosters! BEEAH!”
Obama is not a partisan democrat. He is an Obamist.
he’s an America hater.
remember he said…”the call to prayer is the most beautiful sound”…all you christians need to print that on your foreheads as you go to vote in 2011.
I basically agree with this article. And there’s another amateur analysis Id like to add — Republicans NEED a candidate with personality more than Democrats do if they are to prevail. And that’s because they really have no populist appeal other than religious-based (and that turns OFF an equal number of voters including me) and “patriotism, the flag, rah rah stuff” sometimes authentic (as after 911) sometimes drummed up (as Iraq). It’s the REASON Reagan is invoked so often–that’s what Republican party needs to win.
SO . . . my conclusion as an independent who will PROBABLY vote for Obama, is the only Republican out there who can beat him is Chris Christie. I think too that Huckabee could have done it, but he dropped out. I took great trouble to meet Huckabee in NH during 2008 primary just because of David Brooks approval of him (seemed unlikely coming from Brooks). And he was exactly right–more to Huckabee than just a country boy! I don’t think his stint on Fox has helped him particularly with independents like ME but I do think it’s a plus in terms of Republican base. I could at least ENVISION myself voting for either of them, unless they blow their advantage by signing various pledges by those who want to control the party without skin in the game (Palin, Norquist, et al) and/or becoming part of Koch brothers cabal.
What’s the difference between these two and the rest of the pack thus far? For me, as an independent, they seem able to project beyond Republican “theology” that they COULD be president of a large swath of independents as well.
They seem, in short, like human beings.
Do you know anything about Chris Christie??? He’s a Muslim appeaser, and that’s one of his good qualities. Other than the noteworthy accomplishment of cutting spending in a Dem state, he has NOTHING going for him.
If the Repubs nominate a RINO like Christie, conservatives will stay home in droves. We can say goodbye to the House, and expect a filibuster-proof majority for the Dems in the Senate.
Don’t let your hatred of Christianity blind you to the truth.
Maggy, because Christie has SO MANY TIMES stated that he has NO INTENTION of running, you will probably have to play a fluffer-girl to him in order to convince big boy to shove himself into the race.
Ask Ann Coulter for help. She is constantly sallivating herself over CC while at the same keeping Palin down.
Summary: We doomed. He wins. So we’re doomed.
Rove mentioned the power, glory & respect of the office of president, well I’m here to tell ya that bozObama has turned the glory into whatever his ego dictates & the respect into pure disdain. I look for a mass exodus of Americans if this weasel is re-elected.
Mass exodus?
To where?
I’d WELCOME a mass exodus of Americans – if they think like any of the people in this comments section. Talk about hatred for America. We deal with your guy, you deal with our guy. That’s how it works.
OBAMA 2012
-We deal with your guy, you deal with our guy.-
“Your” guy has taken a bad economy and made it worse.
“Your” guy has taken a bad illegal immigration issue and made it worse.
“Your” guy has taken a bad deficit issue and made it worse.
Among other things.
“Your” guy was elected to be the President of ALL of us. Not just his union friends, the LBGT community, college students, hardcore liberals/progressive/socialists/Marxists, and the others on whom he showers attention.
One question: Do you truly understand the nature of that for which you’re cheering?
How can God let this happen to such a great society?
Have you watched any television lately? Seen any movies? How can you not notice the amount of skin showing on even the youngest of girls? The butch haircuts on the “women”? The foul, sensual “music”? The pagan gyrations that pass for “dancing”? Have you not heard how commonly both obscenity and profanity are used by young and old alike?
And that’s all in the so-called “Christian” community. The world is mostly worse.
The real question is, how can God NOT judge this country?
This is a momentous day.
Myra Adams is right!
Those who have been crowing (here in the comments section of PJM and on other conservative sites) about how badly the Dems are going to get beaten in 2012 are being foolish.
It’ ain’t over til it’s over, and adults should know that.
Some of you braggarts are acting like spoiled children.
You win by convincing the independents. Obama’s extreme left wing policy has alienated the independents. It’s not rocket science. Every single politician on the planet knows this. Incumbency has nothing to do with it. Statistically every election is a 50/50 chance.
And I mean it when I say extreme left wing policy. And his rhetoric is indistinguishable from that of Karl Marx or Lenin.
On top of that put bad economy, high unemployment etc. He didn’t create it, but he didn’t solve it either.
“It’s as if he knows his God-given talents are more suited to “campaigner in chief” than the expected chief executive/commander in chief.”
It’s all he knows how to do. He’s a commander in chief, yet has no military experience or expertise. The closest to executive experience he ever had was working at the Woods Foundation where his job was … distributing other people’s money. Yet the country elected him, and I fear will again. Heaven help us.
FEAR should be the driving force in this coming presidential election. Hillary likes the muslim brother hood, Obama hates america, jobs are leaving right and left, the economy is in the toilet…
He’s geek, a pencil necked geek fancy pants..with no love for our country.
Campaigner in chief…Aside from our immediate threat of Obama and friends, incumbents are one of the primary reasons our country has slid into economic woes..
The only thing that could overcome the president’s shortcomings are the shortcomings of the voters or perhaps the newly “reorganized” ACORN and massive corruption and cheating.
Myra’s right on this one.
No advertisement is bad if the consumer remembers the name of the product. Spike makes a point to get himself on TV hundreds of times a day. Every time he gets on, he is the president.
I hope the author is trying to give Obama and his minions a false sense of security. If not I respectfully disagree about the conclusion reached.
There is always a singular dynamic or trajectory to each presidency. But most presidents have governed within traditional, well established parameters or bounds born of trial and error. The Bamster has governed far outside the envelope of what Americans expect from a president; as if he has tried to reinvent the job to suit himself. But if a president is to create an entirely new governing paradigm it had better work like a charm; so far as I can tell Obama’s has not. No amount of campaign glitz is going to obscure this fact.
With that being said, yes, Obama can get reelected next year if a majority of Americans have become painfully slow-learners or have no real idea what is in their best interests. And it would also help if the dems could manage to steal enough of the election to make a difference–opportunities they are always looking for just before election time. If these factors are not in effect the Bamster will receive his well-earned lay-off notice next year in a landslide.
This article serves to underscore a point I’ve been making wherever I can: The way to defeat Obama is to go after him personally – not just his policies. Burst that bubble that he likes to keep himself in. Trump was the only person who instinctively understood this and he got results (before backing off, unfortunately). Go after O’s bowing down, go after all of the records he has hidden (school admit, grades, writings, travels etc etc etc), go after all of his gaffes, go after his insensitivities (ex: post-Ft Hood, golfing on Memorial Day, etc, go after his slights of allies, etc. Go after his narcissism, his crafty single-finger salutes, etc etc.
Go after the man personally – he can’t take this when it is kept up in a sustained fashion. But, obviously it needs to be done in a way that does not come across as kooky or as empty character assasination – just keep it real and use the man’s own words and actions (lack of actions, coverups, etc) against him.
Even Palin does not understand this (or any of the other candidates) because she is too far from that mold. Everyone says to go after the policies, not the person. This is completely incorrect (or woefully incomplete). Trump (who has a bit of the schoolyard bully/toughie in him as well) does understand what it takes to take down a thin-skinned, imperious bully.
I hope that at some point someone besides Trump realizes that going after the policies and not the man will never be enough. Please, if you see the point in this, help spread the meme around.
From a 2007 article:
Axelrod’s is a less grand, post-ideological approach, and his campaigns are rooted less in issues than in the particulars of his candidate’s life. For Axelrod, running campaigns hitched to personality rather than ideology is a way of reclaiming fleeting authenticity. It is also, more and more, the way of the Democratic Party.
I wonder if the Republican Party read this article that describes the way of the Democratic Party. Axelrod will again use the strategy of lamenting Obama, Michelle and their daughters. There are many supporters who still are influenced by Obama’s book, his family, MSM support, etc. What in the world will it take for them to start judging him on what he does, not what he says?
This is exactly what Republicans and Conservatives are all about – PERSONAL ATTACK. You “claim” you’re not happy with his policies, but really, you’re not happy with him as a person. That’s why you back someone who you yourself called a “schoolyard bully/toughie”.
Barack Obama is going to get re-elected. No doubt about it. And there is nothing any of you can do about it. The people you have swirling about looking for the Republican ticket are jokes; Mitt will NEVER pass muster with the Christians – he’s a Mormon – that’s as bad to them as being a Muslim. Sarah Palin is a circus clown. Michelle Bachmann?? You should pray and pray hard that she doesn’t get elected – she is mentally unstable and a walking, talking comedy show. NO ONE takes her seriously.
OBAMA 2012. Get used to it.
Nobody took 0 seriously in 2007 either.
Anyone with a brain, heart, and knowledge of the Constitution in 2012.
You’re cheering for monsters. Should those who stand behind 0bama win, you won’t like the results. In fact, if history’s any indicator, you won’t believe what’s happening to you – even while it’s happening.
I happen to be a Mormon, and a Christian. Confused? Don’t be. Mormons are Christians! Before commenting, know what you are saying.
Not buying it. I’ve talked to too many independants and liberals who voted for him the first time and have seen the error of their way.
The young and those who normally don’t vote, but did last time, have gotten nothing from this administration and will not turn out in the numbers they did last time. Independents are already making their vote known. I have never seen this much disdain for a President or their administration. Never.
I predict that Obama and the democrats are going to do a super nova on Nov. 6, 2012 and go down in a humiliating defeat. I predict the worst defeat in American history. Republicans take all branches in a landslide.
Oh but they’ll be back once they change history again and the Repulicans get arrogant again ala Bush. But that will be a couple of decades down the road. Perhaps if we are lucky we can patch things up before they get their greasy hands back on the steering wheel. Let’s hope so.
Really? Everything you say I could say for the fascist Republicans. Their aim to destroy the middle class has left a very bad taste in people’s mouth. You got a BIG disappointment coming hon.
The more I hear a person use the word fascist in a conversation its usually a sign the person doesn’t know what he is talking about . Liberals love to club their opponents with that word when they find them selves at the losing end of argument. You so called “progessives” see fascists everywhere, except when you look in the mirror.
Obama started campaigning the day after he was elected. I have never seen a President on TV as much as Obama. He’s on on a daily basis and the msm keeps him there. People are starting to be repulsed by seeing him. Its like watching a bad used car commercial for the hundreth time, its visceral. Cracks are showing in his dam. The mid term elections are a great indicator of how America feels. The independents are moving to the right. Some diehard Democrats are now looking in another direction, they feel that the party has lost them and their sensibilities. I would like to cite an example of what I’m saying.
http://news.yahoo.com/jewish-dems-losing-faith-obama-093200112.html
This is from a very liberal news source which hid its articles within minutes of posting it.
At this point I feel that Bachman or Perry can defeat Obama. Obama knows it. He will come out with an overblown record of himself which will be easily picked apart. He will have to go to attack ads quickly. I think this too will wear
quickly. The only dog in in the house will be the msm. How the msm was allowed to become a partisan player in national elections is beyond me. I have never been against censorship but their “news” reporting has to be brought back to the center, not left or right.
Here is another reason Obama will likely win: in the new PC multiculti America, any criticisms of Obama will be seen as racist, and the Republican nominee, rather than getting down into the fight, will bend so far backwards that his or her back will snap to avoid being seen as racist. It is the ace up Obozo’s sleeve, and he will use it, and the MSM will make even the most mundane aside seem like a racist epithet. If you don’t believe me, look at McCain’s (non)-campaign. When he used the term “that one” in a debate, is was seen as racist code speak. There was no fight in McCain’s stomach; even to use Obozo’s middle name was verboten (as when he fired a talk show host from his campaign for using the H-word). You can bet that the Stupid Party will hire a milquetoast go-along-to-get-along RINO who reaches across the aisle and holds views indistinguishable from democrats (eg, Romney), and give us 4 more years of “that one”. At least we still have term limits for POTUS.
There you have it folks! Myra Adams, a gambling stock trade site & RINO Republicans think the re election of Obama is inevitable. Why even bother having an election? Jeb Bush 2016! JML
I must disagree with the author in at least one area: that of fundraising. BarryO is lagging behind in expected returns, so I don’t believe he will reach the Billion dollar mark legitimately. (There IS always the unspent, unrescinded TARP money…)
I do not think our Bumbler in Chief is as invincible as the author thinks he is.
The pimps who own Obama must be concerned. Their polls and analysis MUST emphasize how very badly Obama is going to lose in 2012. He and most of the dems in Congress will be flushed away and the pimps’ years of expense and efforts will be for naught. They must be thinking of hedging their bets and bribes and looking at alternatives. One alternative, of course, is running someone other than Obama. Maybe Clinton, maybe Kerry or someone like Biden, Cuomo or a clean (if possible) dem governor or senator. Sure, they’ll probably lose too, but the dems may be able to hold a larger piece of Congress.
Incumbency is fine but if your pimps don’t want you, it becomes a bad thing.
He may be reelected. My fear is that he will be and this will trigger some bad things in this country. With the polarization of the country at unprecedented levels and POTUS making it worse I foresee riots in this country that will make the sixties look like a fight on a playground. POTUS will then call in the National Guard, US military or even worse the UN to help him. You may discount this but Obama has already shown that he doesn’t mind ignoring the Constitution, congress, or the judicial system. All of this will be like throwing gasoline on a fire and cause things spin out of control and go into self destruct mode.
This scares the heck out of me but thanks to people who used emotion to cast their vote, instead of information, this is the hand we have been dealt. I Just hope that there is a country to live in after this all plays out. What have we left our children?
What Ms. Adams failed to mention, is, this is also the first ‘black’ President (he doesn’t count his white side), and there is still a lot of whitey guilt to be taken advantage of. A lot of people might think that he can right his wrongs after another four years in office [*cringe*] and therefore people will hope [*cringe again*] he can ‘change’ [*cringes one last time*] and thusly “fundamentally transform America” [*pukes this time*] in a ‘positive’ way [re-education camps thissa way...] as the final legacy of “THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT”.
Think I’m crazy? Think again. People will probably want to give him more ‘time’ [learning on the job isn't easy whilst vacationing and golfing] in hopes that the vaunted first black [American Idol/Talk Show] president doesn’t end up as a ‘black mark’ (sorry) in history.
I sure hope I’m wrong about the American [dummies] electorate. :\
great observation. I have heard it before and I agree.
FDR was a leftist nut job and he got 2 elected twice before Hirohito ended the Great Depression in his flight over Hawaii.
The internet and Fox hurts O b/c they expose him. Reagan was re-elected without a robust non-leftist network.
Thanks, Anon.
The problem is, a lot of people don’t care about politics on the INTERNET like we do (they prefer gossip, file-sharing, videos, porn and stupid dog tricks). We’ve got a huge amount of people with eyes wide shut and on the welfare dole (0bama is mighty proud that more folks than ever are on food stamps).
One thing the Repubs should ram home is that there will be stricter measures for how you qualify for certain ‘entitlements’ and that the truly need will not go without. Because the whole welfare/medicare/social-security system has been rife with abuse and utter illogic as per ‘usual’ with any government run program.
SOMETHING has got to give…and SOON.
what amazes me is that highly educated and successful people support O. I don’t understand it. People who are successful productive people at work … smart, competent, friendly, normal people believe in O.
They buy the Repubicans are racist crap, they think taxes will solve problems, they blame Bush and offer a “what was O supposed to do?”
To some extent W lead us to Obama. A big spending big gov’t Repubican will never ever outcomplete a leftist Dem on thier ground… and the genious of Reagan (and hopefully Bachmann b/c Romney is two notched dimmer than Clinton) was that his solution was “tear it down” and it worked.
Highly educated by…….. prominently Lefty leaning teachers/professors?
LMAO!
Well, there’s your answer.
Sad huh?
If we want to have even a chance of defeating Obama, we have (MUST!) to nominate someone who is truly serious and not that air-head, whom I have already mentioned four times in the past but whose name I shall not mention now in that particular article out of fear of being clobbered nearly to my literary death again.
Obama–all campaign, all the time.
I was just on another blog site which detailed how Obama was able to still get $35,000 a plate for a fund raiser from his Jewish followers. It completely took the wind out of my sails. How the h*ll can my stupid rich brethren still be loyal to this piece of “work”. What’s it going to take for them to see the light? I feel like packing it up and moving to Israel, at least you really know who your enemy is there.
I would disagree with the thrust of this article for one reason – to “know” Obama is to dislike Obama. So many kool-aid drinkers were fooled in ’08. Now nearly three years later, the halo is tarnished, the seas haven’t stopped rising (they never were and aren’t but tell the warmists that, let them keep proclaiming that the oceans are rising), and Obama just doesn’t seem to be the colossus straddling the globe as he did, the thrills up legs are turning into uncomfortable itches.
His god-like status has been greatly diminished. The styrofoam columns may have been cute then but now they would be emblematic was what Obama is, a fraud, a shyster, an empty suit. His golfing while the nation burns is taking its toll. His wife as proven to be a disgusting troll, living high on the hog on the taxpayers dime.
Obama was fashioned into something he is not by a complicit media and even they can’t keep the facade up. The nation and the world is slowly wisening up, Obama won’t get reelected unless the republicans draft a true dolt to run against him, and even then the dolt might make it.
Rove and Adams are both wrong. Rove did not list reasons why Obama won’t be re-elected, really. He listed vulnerabilities. If his opponents do not hammer away at those soft spots, those vulnerabilities will not hurt Obama.
Adams is wrong, because she is using statistics with a false premise. She assumed incumbency makes a difference, then looked for proof to support her preconception.
Let’s look at incumbents:
Hoover – Crash of ’29, arguably enabled by him, and certainly mishandled. Dumped.
FDR – Followed Hoover and continued his bad policies and then some. He kept blaming all the bad results on Hoover. He also had his fireside chats, which endeared him to America. They just plain liked him. They did not understand how his policies were the cause of the problem. Obama is today’s FDR, but we have the Internet and it is a game-changer.
Trumann – Started the Korean “police action” War. Dumped.
Ike – Hired to fix the Korean War. He did. Re-elected overwhelmingly.
Johnson – Took over from assassinated Kennedy in ’63. No record of his own, yet. Elected in ’64, but was so unpopular because of Vietnam, he decided not to run again in ’68. He’d've lost, and he knew it. Effectively dumped.
Nixon – Competent President. Did things the folks wanted done. Things were improving by ’72. Re-elected overwhelmingly.
Ford – Took over when Nixon resigned. Never won office on his own. Oil embargo mishandled. Dumped.
Carter – Disastrous Presidency. Dumped.
Reagan – Hugely effective and popular. Re-elected overwhelmingly.
Bush I – He was simply no Reagan. Decently competent. Broke his solemn “no new taxes” pledge. Economy went south as a result. Dumped.
Clinton – Saved by the Republican Congress. Took credit for what others did. Re-elected overwhelmingly.
Bush II – Things were somewhat improving by ’04. Got through some of his agenda. Supported because of 9/11. Re-elected, but not overwhelmingly. Outlier. Special circumstances.
If you look at this list, you will see that Presidents who were perceived as having done their damned jobs were re-elected overwhelmingly. FDR and Clinton were snow jobs. They did poor jobs, but good politicking changed the perception. Those who sucked at being President, got dumped. There is NO incumbency advantage. The re-election campaign is a referendum on your Presidency, nothing else.
Obama cannot change the perception, even with Media cheeerleading. He is not doing his job. He is gonna get dumped, big-time.
PJM needs to stop publishing Adams’ articles. She is just always wrong. I could do far better, and I am no professional.
Adams’ statistics are accurate about incumbents. You are factually incorrect.
Eight of these modern incumbents won re-election. (66%)
Hoover – Incumbent lost in 1932.
FDR – Incumbent won 4 times.
Truman – Incumbent won in 1948. He decided not to run in 1952. He had already served almost 2 full terms. Most of FDR’s last term and then Truman was re-elected in 1948. Truman was not dumped.
Get your facts straight Mr. Malone.
Ike- Incumbent won in 1956.
Johnson- Incumbent won own term in 1964. Did not run in 1968.
Nixon – Incumbent won in 1972
Ford – Incumbent lost in 1976. Mostly because he pardoned Nixon.
Carter – Incumbent lost in 1980.
Reagan – Incumbent won in 1984.
Bush I – Incumbent lost in 1992 in an unusual 3 way race.
Clinton won 43% of the vote.
Bush won 37.5%
Perot won 18.9%
Clinton – Incumbent won in 1996.
Bush II – Incumbent won in 2004.
Good response, but I stand by my post.
Truman and Johnson’s situations were very similar. The previous popular Presidents died in office and they took over. They were elected to their own terms, mostly based on their predecessors’ good names. Neither was popular with their own Party. They both chose not to run for a 2nd term. It’s true that Truman was looking at bowing out, looking for an acceptable replacement, but he did not bow out until after he lost the NH primary. Both he and Johnson were quite unpopular and for the same reasons. They gave us unpopular wars. They would have lost, and they knew it, so they just threw up their hands.
I stand corrected on Ford. Thank you for the correction. I was drawing from my childhood memories. The Oil Embargo was before Ford took office. I did not check the details and got it wrong. Ford was a special case, as he had never been elected at all to either the VP or the Presidency. Thus, he had no natural constituency. Also, with a disgraced Nixon, he could not gain the reflected glory of the previous President.
My post was about why they won or lost (or did not run again). After their own term of 4 years, the re-election was determined based on their record. FDR and Clinton were able to spin things and mask their records. Truman, Johnson, Carter, Bush I could not. Obama also cannot. If we did not have the ‘Net, he could do it, with the Media shilling for him as they do, but they do not have enough whitewash to cover his record.
Incumbency, after a full 4-yr term, is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. It is about one’s record.
Unfortunately, the US electorate has become cranially obese from their steady diet of MSM sophistry. They mindlessly follow where the propagandists lead, so Obama stands a fair chance of reelection so he can complete his divide and destroy mission against America.