No primary challenger = re-election in modern Presidential era

[aaaaaa5a]

2012-Obama (No Primary Challenger) TBD


2008- OPEN Election


2004 Bush (No Primary Challenger) WON


2000- OPEN Election


1996- Clinton (No Primary Challenger) WON


1992-Bush (Had a Primary Challenger/Buchanan) LOST


1988-OPEN election


1984-Reagan (No Primary Challenger) WON


1980- Carter (Had a Primary Challenger/Kennedy) LOST


1976-Ford (Had a Primary Challenger/Reagan) LOST


1972- Nixon (No Primary Challenger) WON


1968- Johnson (Did not run for second term but clearly would have had multiple Primary Challengers) LOST


1964- OPEN election


1960- OPEN election

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. There will be no challenge "of consequence". Bank on it. (nt)

[krawhitham]

2. Not in the Primary or General

[Vicar In A Tutu]

6. Well, yeah. There's always a 'challenger' though.

Even Clinton had to go through the formalities.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aaaaaa5a]

5. Technically, George Wallace (Alabama Governor)

attempted to run for the Democratic nomination in 1964. But I don't think it was considered a party challenge. It was more of a protest in regard to Civil Rights which eventually led him to run as a third party segregationist Presidential candidate in 1968. To be officially accurate I probably should have included it, but in realistic terms it was not a challenge in the "true spirit" of the context of a 3rd party challenger.



If I recall my history I think the Democratic delegates of Alabama refused to support Johnson over the issue of Civil Rights and instead voted for Wallace while keeping Johnson off the ballot in the state of Alabama.


It was a wild and crazy time. And those old Southern Democrats is what gave rise to the modern Republican Party of today. These are the same people that now make up the Tea Party and back candidates like Palin and Bachman.

This is the reason the South is so solidly Republican today….. RACE.

[former9thward]

8. Wallace was actually fairly successful in 1964.

He got one third of the vote in Indiana, Wisconsin and Maryland. There were just a few primaries back then.

[AndiMer]

4. Looks good to me!

;P

[craigmatic]

7. 1960 was not an open election, niether were 1988, or 2000.

Open elections are when there is no sitting president or VP on the ballot. Still what you say is generally true with the exception of 1948.

[democrattotheend]

10. I think open means no incumbent president

I don't think VP's count. I think technically, an open election is any election where there is no incumbent.

2008 was unusual because both sides were wide open...no incumbent or VP.

[Ter]

9. We're overdue

20 years ago was too long ago. Clinton and Bush II should have gotten them too.

[Alexander]

11. Johnson didn't lose in 1968. That was an open election.

Humphrey, his VP, lost.

[Avant Guardian]

12. Johnson LOST even though he didn't run? That is dishonest.

:rofl:

Pappy Bush lost because of Ross Perot who took 20% of the vote in 92.

[aaaaaa5a]

13. Just to clarify the LBJ questions

Although LBJ didn't run, his party still lost the Presidency. If LBJ had decided to run he would have had multiple challengers. The point of the OP is that a very good way to determine the true strength of a Presidents reelection chances is if he is primaried. History has shown that for the most part, Presidents who face no primary challenge are reelected. Conversely if there is a primary challenger to a sitting President, it means that President is very weak and there is not a good chance the sitting President or Party will keep the office anyway.

[Ishoutandscream2]

14. You're forgetting Lee Mercer, Jr.

[quaker bill]

15. The chicken or the egg

Did they win because there was no challenge, or was there no challenge because they were not vulnerable, and therefore won the general as well. On the other hand, was there a challenger because the sitting President was sufficiently unpopular to give a challenger a meaningful chance?

Ford pardoned Nixon and probably would have lost without a challenge. Carter was deeply unpopular due to the economy and constant infighting with the party which kept him less effective. Bush I did the "no new taxes bit" then passed taxes to try to fix a portion of the Reagan - Laffer budget deficit crater, but if it weren't for Perot probably would have squeaked by. Bush II, there was no challenger because none could have come close in the Republican primary. Clinton was not touchable, so there was no challenge.