First in 88 years?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Most people seem to think this presidential election will be close, but if so, it will be the first close re-election campaign of an elected president since 1916.  

With four years in office, it seems every other president has either formed a national consensus for or against him.  Will such a consensus form about Bush by November?

The numbers over the last 100 years:

Re-election of elected president: (12 elections)
Close: '16
Big win for challenger: '12, '32, '80, '92,
Big win for incumbent:'36, '40, '44, '56, '72, '84, '96

Re-election of non-elected president: (5 elections)
Close: '48, '76
Big win for incumbent: '04, '24, '64

Open seat: (8 elections)
Close: '60, '68, 2000
Not close: '08, '20, '28, '52, '88

[Gustaf]

Most people seem to think this presidential election will be close, but if so, it will be the first close re-election campaign of an elected president since 1916.  

With four years in office, it seems every other president has either formed a national consensus for or against him.  Will such a consensus form about Bush by November?

The numbers over the last 100 years:

Re-election of elected president: (12 elections)
Close: '16
Big win for challenger: '12, '32, '80, '92,
Big win for incumbent:'36, '40, '44, '56, '72, '84, '96

Re-election of non-elected president: (5 elections)
Close: '48, '76
Big win for incumbent: '04, '24, '64

Open seat: (8 elections)
Close: '60, '68, 2000
Not close: '08, '20, '28, '52, '88

Make it for those who run as VPs...they usually lose.

I agree though, a close election is unusual. But I think circumstances are special now, so I see it being relatively close, with Bush pulling through in the end. That is in itself not usual. How many elections have vad a margin of 2-5%? None, except Carter-Ford maybe...

[dazzleman]

That's an interesting observation.  I hadn't realized it had been that long since there was a close re-election race involving an elected president.

I think it's too soon to tell whether this race will be close.  I think it will be, but things could happen that would open it up a little bit, one way or the other.

The capture of UBL and a strong pickup in jobs could open up a strong lead for Bush, and put a number currently close states out of reach for the Democrats.

On the other hand, if the economy sinks and there are serious problems in Iraq, Bush will be very vulnerable to losing currently close key states, and it could result in a stronger victory for the Democrats.

The big wild card is the effect of a possible terrorist attack in the United States.  The impact could also be affected by the timing - whether it's right before the election, or several weeks or months before, in which case voters would have had some time to think about it before voting.

My feeling is that major problems in Iraq will hurt the president, but a terrorist attack at home would probably help him.  I have noticed that a lot of Democrats I know are now saying that 9/11 was a freak occurrence, and that they're more scared of Bush than they are of terrorists.  This ties in with consistent Democratic thinking since the Vietnam War that all threats to us are within our control, and brought on by our own leaders.  And this is how they justify their anti-defense position.  An attack would rip the rug right out from under this type of thinking, and could open the door to a Bush landslide.  On the other hand, there could be a Spanish-type reaction, but I doubt that.

As I recall, the major issue in 1916 was whether to enter World War I (then called the World War).  There must have been other issues too.  Wilson ran as the "peace" candidate (just as LBJ did in 1964) and ended up taking the country into war almost immediately after his second term started.

[Gustaf]

That's an interesting observation.  I hadn't realized it had been that long since there was a close re-election race involving an elected president.

I think it's too soon to tell whether this race will be close.  I think it will be, but things could happen that would open it up a little bit, one way or the other.

The capture of UBL and a strong pickup in jobs could open up a strong lead for Bush, and put a number currently close states out of reach for the Democrats.

On the other hand, if the economy sinks and there are serious problems in Iraq, Bush will be very vulnerable to losing currently close key states, and it could result in a stronger victory for the Democrats.

The big wild card is the effect of a possible terrorist attack in the United States.  The impact could also be affected by the timing - whether it's right before the election, or several weeks or months before, in which case voters would have had some time to think about it before voting.

My feeling is that major problems in Iraq will hurt the president, but a terrorist attack at home would probably help him.  I have noticed that a lot of Democrats I know are now saying that 9/11 was a freak occurrence, and that they're more scared of Bush than they are of terrorists.  This ties in with consistent Democratic thinking since the Vietnam War that all threats to us are within our control, and brought on by our own leaders.  And this is how they justify their anti-defense position.  An attack would rip the rug right out from under this type of thinking, and could open the door to a Bush landslide.  On the other hand, there could be a Spanish-type reaction, but I doubt that.

As I recall, the major issue in 1916 was whether to enter World War I (then called the World War).  There must have been other issues too.  Wilson ran as the "peace" candidate (just as LBJ did in 1964) and ended up taking the country into war almost immediately after his second term started.

I agree with your electoral assesments. A terrorist attack would help Bush I think.

[Platypus]

Depends. A terrorist attack would help before September, but after that I think it would hinder him because it would be at the sort of catalyst point. Kerry would say that despite mountains of spending and a huge deficit, the attacks haven't stopped, and I think enough americans would believe him.

It is a shame that 4000 people can die and 290 million people have to live with the consequences. Well, 5 billion really, the US President is the most important man on earth...

[opebo]

Depends. A terrorist attack would help before September, but after that I think it would hinder him because it would be at the sort of catalyst point. Kerry would say that despite mountains of spending and a huge deficit, the attacks haven't stopped, and I think enough americans would believe him.

It is a shame that 4000 people can die and 290 million people have to live with the consequences. Well, 5 billion really, the US President is the most important man on earth...

I think any terrorist attack at any time between now and the election gaurantees a strong Bush victory - voters know which party fights and which rolls over.

[Platypus]

Do you want an academic response, or for me to follow your lead and flame?

[opebo]

Do you want an academic response, or for me to follow your lead and flame?

Not a flame - I think the parties have very clear real differences on this issue, and the differences are even greater in voter's perceptions.

People honestly like a 'cowboy' like Bush when they feel its time to fight.

[Gustaf]

Depends. A terrorist attack would help before September, but after that I think it would hinder him because it would be at the sort of catalyst point. Kerry would say that despite mountains of spending and a huge deficit, the attacks haven't stopped, and I think enough americans would believe him.

It is a shame that 4000 people can die and 290 million people have to live with the consequences. Well, 5 billion really, the US President is the most important man on earth...

If we're including the world why not all the 6 million that inhabit it?

[angus]

6,355,664,023 according to the US official estimate.

but who's counting?  

[classical liberal]

The planet and all of its contents, living or not, are affected by who is POTUS.

[Gustaf]

The planet and all of its contents, living or not, are affected by who is POTUS.

The non-living ones? Does that inclide dead people? Tha traises the interrsting question of whether they're affcted by us at all, i.e. do they still exist and do their bodies represent them?