Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 31, 2015, 02:51:15 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Delicious Steak Pentagram)
| | |-+  About that primary = incumbent party loses meme
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: About that primary = incumbent party loses meme  (Read 1047 times)
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34405


View Profile
« on: September 04, 2011, 06:47:25 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Paul Kemp
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6263
United States
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2011, 07:11:33 pm »
Ignore

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

Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16324
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2011, 07:29:50 pm »
Ignore

1964 is significantly different from 2012.
Logged

"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 484


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2011, 07:58:47 pm »
Ignore

'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.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34405


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2011, 10:21:34 pm »
Ignore

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?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 10:25:15 pm by ○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└ »Logged

dallasfan65
Dallasfan65
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6072


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2011, 11:07:51 pm »
Ignore

"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?
Logged


With Paul Laxalt's entry, President Lloyd Bentsen opens a big lead on Areus Ho'kee in Dust In The Wind - The Story of Thad O'Connor
has anyone else seen OC's timeline?
Makes GPORTER look like Dallasfan
Αλληλεγγύη
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34892
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2011, 11:23:37 am »
Ignore

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

RIP Greece. RIP European Federalism.



"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favor."

Tyrion Lannister, Game of Thrones, ep. 5x09
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 484


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2011, 12:28:33 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Paul Kemp
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6263
United States
View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2011, 12:33:37 pm »
Ignore

Dean'12

Did I miss something?
Logged

○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34405


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2011, 02:49:02 pm »
Ignore


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

minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58767
India


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2011, 03:01:33 pm »
Ignore

DeanSixteen sounds much better, anyhow.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
At-large Senator Kalwejt
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39936


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2011, 01:25:40 am »
Ignore

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?
Logged

Good books tell the truth, even when they're about things that never have been and never will be. They're truthful in a different way

Stanisław Lem
At-large Senator Kalwejt
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39936


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 06, 2011, 01:35:03 am »
Ignore

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.

Quote
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.
Logged

Good books tell the truth, even when they're about things that never have been and never will be. They're truthful in a different way

Stanisław Lem
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines