5 Most Anti Incumbent Elections since 1900

[OSR stands with Israel]

1. 1932
2. 1920
3. 1980
4. 2008
5. 1952

[MATTROSE94]

1920, 1932, and 1980 were arguably the most anti-incumbent U.S. Presidential elections ever.

[NeverAgain]

1. 1980
2. 1932
3. 1952
4. 1920
5. 2008
Same as @Computer09 just did them in order of electoral vote.

[Beet]

1. 1932 - clearly a referendum on the incumbent. fdr was incoherent ( running on balanced budget, etc.)
2. 1912 - most of incumbent's own party abandons him despite winning the nomination
3. 1968 - incumbent failed to even run upon seeing the writing on the wall
4. 1952 - see 1968
5. 1980 - incumbent had a reasonable shot well into the year, but lost the final debate big time
runner up: 2008
2nd runner up: 1992

1920 was not anti-incumbent, people just wanted to turn the page

[OSR stands with Israel]

1. 1932 - clearly a referendum on the incumbent. fdr was incoherent ( running on balanced budget, etc.)
2. 1912 - most of incumbent's own party abandons him despite winning the nomination
3. 1968 - incumbent failed to even run upon seeing the writing on the wall
4. 1952 - see 1968
5. 1980 - incumbent had a reasonable shot well into the year, but lost the final debate big time
runner up: 2008
2nd runner up: 1992

1920 was not anti-incumbent, people just wanted to turn the page

You think 1968 was worse then 1980 or 2008

[Beet]

1. 1932 - clearly a referendum on the incumbent. fdr was incoherent ( running on balanced budget, etc.)
2. 1912 - most of incumbent's own party abandons him despite winning the nomination
3. 1968 - incumbent failed to even run upon seeing the writing on the wall
4. 1952 - see 1968
5. 1980 - incumbent had a reasonable shot well into the year, but lost the final debate big time
runner up: 2008
2nd runner up: 1992

1920 was not anti-incumbent, people just wanted to turn the page

You think 1968 was worse then 1980 or 2008

In 1968, the incumbent's party dropped from 61% to 43%, a drop of over 18%. In 1980, incumbent party vote dropped only 9%, in 2008, only 5%. Fair comparison because Wallace was even further to the right than Nixon. Also, Humphrey was trailing by even more before liberals panicked in October and tried to rally behind him.

[DS0816]

Re: 5 Most Anti Incumbent Elections since 1900

In timeline order:

 • 1912
 • 1932
 • 1976
 • 1980
 • 1992

[Türkisblau]

Re: 5 Most Anti Incumbent Elections since 1900

Why do you do this? It already shows up in blue above your post.

[Mr. Smith]

5. 1980
4. 1968
3. 1912
2. 1920
1. 1932

Dishonors to 1992 and 1952

[Dancing with Myself]

1. 1932. People hated Hoover's guts with a passion that year. He had to deal with items being thrown at him constantly and death threats but he campaigned like a man and took it. He could have won if he didn't do a few things that made the depression worse. FDR didn't really need to try like he did that year.

2.1912. Poor Taft couldn't catch a cold let a lone a break that year. Roosevelt had a serious vendetta against him that year and wouldn't let him be and took his votes from him. Without TR he probably would have won against Wilson who wasn't that big of a name that year.

3.1800. Like 1932 most of everyone hated Adams for the Alien/Sedition acts among other things.  His dealings with France weren't popular either and then add the attack ads. Plus people just naturally loved Jefferson more

4.1992.  Bush couldn't do anything right that year. He won a decisive military event the year before and was a solid foreign policy President but that wasn't enough that year. First he had a thorn in his side with Perot who was everything the right wanted that year. He split his vote more than anything. Then came Clinton who was one of the most charismatic candidates ever nominated.  Clinton himself would have been a challenge that year but Perot made it impossible.  It's not like Bush did himself any favors though but even if he ran a perfect campaign he prob wouldn't have won in that three way race.

5. 2008. Dudbya was such a liability he had to talk at the convention via Satellite and video. Anyone of the Reps nominated would have had it rough but McCain hurt himself badly 1 by picking the porn star/model as his VP candidate and 2 making that comment about the economy "being sound," when it was falling apart. Yeah he was dead after that. It didn't matter who the Dems nominated that year they were set then. They could have nominated a pig like the hippies in 1968 did and they could have won. But Obama was the right candidate at the right time.  Was he the best choice? Nope, but he sure knew how to campaign.


Horrible mentions:

1980- This is a cliche pick but the odd part besides the results Carter led for a majority of the race. Even if Reagan had the better campaign, ads, and style Carter would have won minus the debate. Once that happened he was dead in the water.

1856/60- Both are solid choices because both were weak as pondwater Democratic Presidents withnot any backbone to lead the nation properly and kissed both the north and the south's behind too much instead of making a stand.  People were so sick of that they elected the radical choice even if they knew it would lead to the country breaking up.

1896- The Panic of 1893 was still fresh in people's minds and Cleveland was as hated as Hoover was in 1832. He wasn't even considered for re-nomination. Instead they chose and candidate in WJB who just gave a good speech but was extreme in his practices. McKinley ran the first modern campaign that year with his front porch methods and it worked.