Rank reelection campaigns of all two term presidents since Nixon

[OSR stands with Israel]

1. Obama 2012
2. Reagan 1984
3. Clinton 1996
4. Nixon 1972
5. Bush 2004

[Sumner 1868]

As in best to worst? If so then probably:

1. Nixon 1972
2. Clinton 1996
3. Reagan 1984
4. Bush 2004
5. Obama 2012

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

1.Reagan 1984
2.Bush 2004
3.Clinton 1996
4.Nixon 1972
5.Obama 2012

[OSR stands with Israel]

1.Reagan 1984
2.Bush 2004
3.Clinton 1996
4.Nixon 1972
5.Obama 2012

Why is Bush so high

[Mr. Smith]

5. Obama '12
4. Bush '04
3. Clinton '96
2. Nixon '72
1. Reagan '84

[Del Tachi]

1.  Obama 2012
2.  Bush 2004
3.  Reagan 1984
4.  Clinton 1996
5.  Nixon 1972

All of these were good campaigns, however. 

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

1.Reagan 1984
2.Bush 2004
3.Clinton 1996
4.Nixon 1972
5.Obama 2012

Why is Bush so high

It was indisputably a great campaign. He defined Kerry as early as March, successfully used a wedge issue (gay marriage) to turn out historic levels of African-American GOP support in Ohio, and had very effective attack ads (Windsurfing & Wolves).

[bobloblaw]

Clinton didnt run much of a campaign in 1996. I always thought Lamar Alexander would have been the best candidate. At least winning TN and possibly KY.

Reagan's was really good, the epitome of a positive campaign, but it didnt really change the outcome. Aspects of Nixon's were good. China and Russia in 1972. Aspects were awful and criminal. CREEP and leaning on Arthur F Burns to increase the money supply caused the economy to boom in 1972, but lead to inflation by early 1973.


Now I am conflicted with Bush and Obama. Both won using a "base" strategy, which got them the victory and minor pickups in congress. But left them without any support beyond their bases and set them up for disasters in the following midterms. Both will leave office with deeply diminished parties in deep minority status.

Thus Clinton's long term was the best and Reagan's the second best. Clinton's presidency did no further damage to his party after 1994. Reagan did well until 1986. Both left their parties in slightly diminished positions but not in disastrous positions like Nixon, Bush 43 and Obama.


Obama won with fewer raw votes and a lower percentage of the popular vote. So that can be viewed as good or bad. Good in the sense he was headed for a loss and pulled it out or bad in that he didnt expand his base of support. The only reelected incumbent to fail to do so.

[bobloblaw]

Obama won with fewer raw votes and a lower percentage of the popular vote. So that can be viewed as good or bad. Good in the sense he was headed for a loss and pulled it out or bad in that he didnt expand his base of support. The only reelected incumbent to fail to do so.

Madison and FDR are counterexamples

Well I should say 2 terms for FDR. FDR did win 3rd and 4th terms with smaller vote totals but he won in 1936 with more.

[buritobr]

An objetive indicator of the efficiency of the reelection campaign could be

Efficiency of the campaign = national popular vote - approval rate before the start of the campaign

Considering approval rate in the election eve is not good because the approval rate in that day is also influenced by the campaign.

We could say that Bush 2004 and Obama 2012 ran good campaigns because they had >50% of the national popular vote even though they didn't have high approval rates.

[Podgy the Bear]

I would place Bush '04 as the best reelection campaign.  He was able to pull the whole party with him--unlike Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton which ended up becoming personal triumphs in the era of ticket splitting (doesn't exist today).

Second place would go to Obama '12.  In hindsight, both the 2004 and 2012 elections were not shoo ins for the incumbent going into Election Day--and both campaigns did a great job in getting out the vote for their candidate.

[bobloblaw]

I would place Bush '04 as the best reelection campaign.  He was able to pull the whole party with him--unlike Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton which ended up becoming personal triumphs in the era of ticket splitting (doesn't exist today).

Second place would go to Obama '12.  In hindsight, both the 2004 and 2012 elections were not shoo ins for the incumbent going into Election Day--and both campaigns did a great job in getting out the vote for their candidate.

Nixon's 72 campaign was a completely selfish campaign. He won 61-62% and his party got nothing.

I think base elections like 04 and 12 are damaging for the winner's second term

[Skye]

1. Nixon '72
2. Reagan '84
3. Obama '12
4. Bush '04
...
Worst: Carter '80

[Podgy the Bear]

1. Nixon '72
2. Reagan '84
3. Obama '12
4. Bush '04
...
Worst: Carter '80

Which (among other reasons) is why Carter didn't become a two term president!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Reagan 84
Obama 12
Nixon 72
Clinton 96
Dubya 04

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I would place Bush '04 as the best reelection campaign.  He was able to pull the whole party with him--unlike Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton which ended up becoming personal triumphs in the era of ticket splitting (doesn't exist today).

Second place would go to Obama '12.  In hindsight, both the 2004 and 2012 elections were not shoo ins for the incumbent going into Election Day--and both campaigns did a great job in getting out the vote for their candidate.

Nixon's 72 campaign was a completely selfish campaign. He won 61-62% and his party got nothing.

I think base elections like 04 and 12 are damaging for the winner's second term

You have to wonder if Nixon and Reagan should've just ran more partisan campaigns that would've reduced their margins of victory but may have gotten them a cooperative Congress.

It's worth noting, however, that the reason the R's gained Senate seats in '04 while losing them in '72 and '84 is because the map was much more favorable to them in the former than in the latter. As for the House, well they already controlled it...they obviously weren't going to lose it at the same time their president was reelected.

[Hydera]

Best to Worst.

1. 1972 Nixon
2. 1984 Reagan
3. 1996 Clinton
4. 2004 Bush
5. 2012 Obama

Obama's re-election campaign was terrible if you ignore that he won. Considering unlike the other presidents, he lost electoral votes and his Vote margin over the last election being chopped in half. Clinton's was also disappointing given his circumstances when he presided over four years that had 10 million jobs created but unlike reagan and nixon, all three had good economic rebounds by their re-election. Yet Clinton didn't get a electoral landslide.  Something to note is that reagan would of been top but he did screw up his first debate with mondale and that costed him minnesota.