A Case for Optimism

[rogerashton]

OK, it's a hard job, but somebody needs to do it.

Well – then again, is it really such a hard job?

1) Incumbency is not a big advantage in presidential elections.

Since 1960, the following presidents have been eligible to run in the following election:

Johnson – elected not to run, would probably have been defeated
Nixon – won, but you may have heard of Watergate
Ford – lost, but, of course, he was unelected
Carter – lost
Reagan – won
Bush I – lost
Clinton – won

That's no better than 50-50, folks, even if you weight Nixon at 100% and Johnson at zero. Not enough to draw statistical conclusions, but there is certainly no evidence that incumbency is a decisive advantage.

Earlier in the 20th century, things may have been different. 1932-60 seems to have been the period of presidential dynasties. During that generation, note, we had just three presidents. That's the period that stands out as a historical exception!

2) Bush has peaked too soon.

I just heard it on TV – last month Dean was unstoppable, this month Bush* is unstoppable. LOL! The media have short memories, and what happens this month will be SOOO 2003 by the end of January. OK: Saddam has been found. Now he will have to be tried. By whom? What will come out in the process? What conflicts with our Iraqui "friends" will result? Of course, if Osama's mortal remains were to be recovered in Oct. 2004, all bets are off, but face it, folks, these guys aren't smart enough to rig that even if they could. OK, the economy is up. It really is, skeptics, and Bush* claims credit for his tax cuts. But never mind advanced macroeconomics: taxes did not go down. State and local rises have swamped the tiny federal cut most of us got, and y'know what? Federal rebates are taxable income on state and local taxes in most states. Brace yourself for the media to discover that about April 1. In any case, growth will slack off, and (while we will not be back in a recession, technically) unemployment will rise a bit second or third quarter. That doesn't mean Democrats can sit back and rely on "the economy issue." That will be a dead draw – but not an advantage for the shrub.

3) The Dean campaign has brought new people into Democratic politics, and they won't walk if someone else is nominated. OK, I admit that there is a feel of 1968 about this, but the truth is that we McCarthyites (yes, I was one) didn't walk on HHH – we gritted our teeth and voted for him. It was the Wallacites who walked. HHH just could not be pro-war enough for them (lesson?). Anyway, if Dean is not nominated for president, it would take a very stupid Demo not to offer him the veep spot. Yes, there are some stupid demos out there, and we CAN beat ourselves – but we don't have to.

4) The popular vote trend in this country, in presidential elections, is toward the left.
The right peaked in 1980 – and even then, Reagan's electoral landslide was a bare majority in the popular vote. Remember, there was a third party candidate, Anderson, who ran TO THE LEFT of Carter on domestic policy. The vote for the Greens in 2000 was the largest popular vote for a left candidate in 80 years, and the left, counting both Gore and Nader, was a clear majority. Conversely, "centrism" has not brought Democrats a majority. The only southern democratic centrist who has won a majority of the popular vote is Carter in 1976 with .501. Clinton never got a majority – 43% the first time and 49% the second – and probably would never have been president without Perot's help. It was the suburbs that took the country right in the 1970's and 1980's, and the suburbs are increasingly sharing urban problems, and meanwhile, the blue states keep losing population.

[Walt Starr]

1. Incumbent presidents with no primary opposition is a problem

Johnson – elected not to run, would probably have been defeated and was facing opposition in the primaries
Nixon – won, no primary opposition of note.
Ford – lost and was opposed by Reagan in the primaries
Carter – lost and was opposed by Ted Kennedy in the primaries
Reagan – won and had no primary opposition
Bush I – lost and faced primary opposition from both Pat Robem$ome and Pat Buchanan
Clinton – won and had no primary opposition.

[mikehiggins]

2. About LBJ and Nixon

Would LBJ have won? Its an open question. I know that I was personally relieved when he came on TV and announced his decision not to run even though, on reflection, if he had run RFK might still be alive today. Still, I don't think he influences the incumbency argument either way. He was the incumbent but he didn't run.

Nixon was the incumbent and he was reelected, despite what he was doing in VietNam, Cambodia, Laos and anywhere else he could bomb an oriental (maybe he was abused by an oriental as a child?). The Watergate hearings were after the fact, as was his forced resignation and immediate pardon.

Gerry Ford went into the campaign carrying the weight of Nixon's crimes AND his pardon of RMN along with him. Carter ran an okay campaign as a good and honest man who would scourge the moneylenders out of the temple, which all but guaranteed he would lose a reelection bid. He ran an inept government and a terrible foriegn policy (can you say "hostages") and in the end was only defeated by what may yet turn out to be the most egregious example of treason ever to go unpunished in this nations history (of course, the full story of the Bush administration has yet to be told)

My point is, incumbency is a terrific advantage if (A)the people at large don't actually hate you and (B)the opposition is not seen as much of an improvement.

Sooooooo...connect the dots

[rogerashton]

3. incumbency --

Well, good point about primary opposition. But is that a cause or a symptom?

And, Mike -- you seem to be saying that it depends a lot on the specifics of the case. I'll buy that.

Fact remains, Carter is the last democratic candidate to get a majority of the popular vote.

[Benhurst]

4. One advantage an incumbent usually has is the simple fact that

he won the last election, in which more people voted for him than they did for the candidate of the other party. Usually, in order to win against an incumbent, the candidate of the opposition party must persuade a certain number of voters to switch from the candidate they supported in the last election.

In Shrub's case (I'm assuming we are allowed to use nicknames for non-Democrats), he did not win the majority or plurality of votes in the last election, and only won in Electoral College through the machinations of the his brother and a corrupt United States Supreme Court.

Granted * will have that great slush fund of his and all the pomp and circumstance of the White House and Air Force One; but bottom line, more people voted against him last time than for him; and I doubt if many have changed their minds in his favor.

He does have the powers of the Presidency, strengthened now by the so-called "Patriot" Act. If he is in office on January 21, 2004, it will more probably be the result of a stolen black-box election or martial law, not the will of the people.

:hurts: