About that primary = incumbent party loses meme

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So, there was an incumbent President who ran for re-election.
He got less than a third of the pledged votes in the primary, less than that the combined total of 2 governors who challenged him.
He won only around 60% of the primary states.

Clearly he went down in flames in the general election.

Oh wait, LBJ won in 1964 by 24 points. So much for that stupid meme.

[Paul Kemp]

When a national tragedy occurs a year before your election usually you're given the benefit of the doubt.

[CathKhan]

1964 is significantly different from 2012.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry 2016!]

'64 was a couple of cycles before primaries became decisive in the nomination race (hence Humphrey's win in '68). I'm not even sure LBJ was formally on the ballot in a lot of places - I believe he was a write-in candidate in the NH primary (same as in '68). Also, Wallace could be written off at that point as a racial protest candidate, not somebody who represented broad dissatisfaction with Johnson.

I do agree that people tend to overstate the impact of a primary challenge. Carter probably would have lost without the Kennedy challenge, and Reagan's bid didn't seem to have any discernible impact on Ford.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When a national tragedy occurs a year before your election usually you're given the benefit of the doubt.

Really? Because he wasn't given the benefit of the doubt in the primaries.

'64 was a couple of cycles before primaries became decisive in the nomination race (hence Humphrey's win in '68). I'm not even sure LBJ was formally on the ballot in a lot of places - I believe he was a write-in candidate in the NH primary (same as in '68). Also, Wallace could be written off at that point as a racial protest candidate, not somebody who represented broad dissatisfaction with Johnson.

I do agree that people tend to overstate the impact of a primary challenge. Carter probably would have lost without the Kennedy challenge, and Reagan's bid didn't seem to have any discernible impact on Ford.

Wallace was hardly his only opponent. Heck, LBJ plus Wallace were only around half of the pledged primary votes. LBJ clearly did worse in the 1964 primaries than Carter did in the 1980 primaries. But of course you're not going to hear about 1964 from those who want Obama to get a free pass in the primaries. The fact that he did poorly in the primaries and set the all time record for percentage of the popular vote (since they started keeping track in the 1820s) makes their argument crap.


It's also hilarious what they mention 1976. How many Republicans would take another term of Ford over 2 terms of Reagan?

[Dallasfan65]

"Clear the way for LBJ, vote Welsh on the fifth of May."

I guess you've never heard of stalking horses, favorite sons, or the like?

[Californian Tony]

There's primary challenges and primary challenges. Bradley'00 or Dean'12 are nothing close to Reagan'76 or Kennedy'80.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry 2016!]

Bradley'00 or Dean'12 are nothing close to Reagan'76 or Kennedy'80.

Sitting veeps are almost always challenged for the nom. Not the same thing.

[Paul Kemp]

Dean'12

Did I miss something?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Dean'12

Did I miss something?

Dean said he wasn't running in 2012. Of course Obama said he wasn't running in 2008.

[Vasall des Midas]

DeanSixteen sounds much better, anyhow.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

So, there was an incumbent President who ran for re-election.
He got less than a third of the pledged votes in the primary, less than that the combined total of 2 governors who challenged him.
He won only around 60% of the primary states.

Clearly he went down in flames in the general election.

Oh wait, LBJ won in 1964 by 24 points. So much for that stupid meme.

All candidates who ran in primaries, except of Wallace, who merely tested the ground and didn't win any, were favorite-sons, supporting Johnson.

In California, for example, Johnson was not even on the ballot.

Only few states held primaries before 1972.

Popular vote plurality winner was technically Pat Brown, but he ran only in California. And yes, was Johnson supporter.

Before 1972, there were few primaries and favorite sons, which had minimal effect on nomination.

So HOW IS YOUR POST RELEVANT?

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Wallace was hardly his only opponent. Heck, LBJ plus Wallace were only around half of the pledged primary votes. LBJ clearly did worse in the 1964 primaries than Carter did in the 1980 primaries.

Again, more nonsense.

Reynolds in Wisconsin, Porter in Ohio, Brewster in Maryland, Welsh in Indiana, Randolph in West Virginia, Brown in California were not LBJ opponents. LBJ did not run in any of these primaries, for Christ's sake! They were his allies and favorite-sons in each homestate.

Wallace did not compete against LBJ. Instead he only seriously challenged Welsh in Indiana and Brewster in Maryland.

LBJ clearly did worse in the 1964 primaries than Carter did in the 1980 primaries.

SO WHAT? You can't compare few primaries nationwide in 1964, during favorite-sons era, when primaries had little impact on nomination, with 1980, when every state had some form of primary/caucus.