FerrisBueller86
jhsu
Jr. Member
Posts: 507
|
 |
« on: May 30, 2005, 12:45:27 PM » |
|
I've noticed that there seems to be a correlation between the presence of a significant primary challenge to an incumbent president and the ousting of the incumbent president in November. It's easy to see why - a significant primary challenge means that a significant portion of the party base doesn't like the incumbent. This makes it harder to rally the base voters, takes resources away from going after the swing voters, and helps rally the opposition. On the other hand, the lack of a primary challenge to an incumbent president means that the party base likes the incumbent, makes it easier to rally the base voters, allows the incumbent to go after the swing voters, and doesn't lend ammunition to the opposition.
The results:
1964: no primary challenge to LBJ, LBJ wins in the biggest Democratic landslide since FDR and even wins Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and ALL of the Great Plains states
1968: primary challenges to LBJ, LBJ drops out of re-election race due to extreme unpopularity
1972: no primary challenge, Nixon wins every state except Massachusetts
1976: Reagan challenges Ford, Ford loses to Carter
1980: Ted Kennedy challenges Carter, Reagan unseats him in a landslide
1984: no primary challenge, Reagan wins every state except Minnesota
1992: Buchanan challenges Bush, Clinton unseats Bush
1996: no primary challenge, Clinton wins
2004: no primary challenge, Bush wins
Has there been a presidential election in which the incumbent president faced a strong primary challenge but won? Or a presidential election in which the incumbent president faced no primary challenge but lost?
|
