Incumbency in 2020
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:43:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Incumbency in 2020
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Incumbency in 2020  (Read 828 times)
American2020
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,493
Côte d'Ivoire


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 15, 2017, 09:05:23 AM »

Doug Sosnik talked about incumbent presidents win usually re-election.

What would be the factors for and against incumbent presidents to be re-elected ?

Discuss.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2017, 10:18:04 AM »

For:

An actual record vs mere promises

Establishment money

Against:

Defense of a bad record, if record is bad

Keeping base enthused and convinced of threat, because fighting against is easier than fighting for.
Logged
Holy Unifying Centrist
DTC
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,201


Political Matrix
E: 9.53, S: 10.54

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2017, 10:58:27 AM »

I mean part of the reason incumbents usually win reelection is they're usually at least somewhat popular (48%+ of the country likes them). We've just happened to have fairly popular presidents in the past 100 years, but if you look back into the 1800's, a lot of them didn't get reelected.

It's hard to say how important incumbency is because we don't know the approval ratings of all of the presidents who lost in the 1800's.

But yeah as for factors for/against

- Are they better today than they were 4 years ago?
- Accomplishments
- National Security
- Strength of America 4 years before
- Money (this can work both for or against -- Incumbent presidents will usually have a much easier time raising money, but a very unpopular incumbent can mobilize the other side).
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2017, 11:04:07 AM »

A lot of the 1800's ones declined to even run for re-election in spite of popularity or lack thereof.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2017, 09:11:51 AM »

I mean part of the reason incumbents usually win reelection is they're usually at least somewhat popular (48%+ of the country likes them). We've just happened to have fairly popular presidents in the past 100 years, but if you look back into the 1800's, a lot of them didn't get reelected.

It's hard to say how important incumbency is because we don't know the approval ratings of all of the presidents who lost in the 1800's.

But yeah as for factors for/against

- Are they better today than they were 4 years ago?
- Accomplishments
- National Security
- Strength of America 4 years before
- Money (this can work both for or against -- Incumbent presidents will usually have a much easier time raising money, but a very unpopular incumbent can mobilize the other side).


The President has a great deal of power to control people's views as to the above.  Folks might vote for a President and, afterward, come to think they've been had.  That doesn't matter, however, once the votes are counted, other than the ill will it would generate for an incumbent President's second term.

Logged
Sestak
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,268
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2017, 12:34:49 PM »

I think another one of the main points here is "better the enemy you know than the one you don't". If both candidates are considered bad, people will probably think, "well, we already survived one term of (insert incumbent here), so we should be able to survive another".
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2017, 12:48:11 PM »

I think another one of the main points here is "better the enemy you know than the one you don't". If both candidates are considered bad, people will probably think, "well, we already survived one term of (insert incumbent here), so we should be able to survive another".

Sure she wasn't an incumbent technically, but by de-facto, we saw last year how that logic turned out for Hillary.
Logged
Sestak
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,268
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2017, 12:54:45 PM »

I think another one of the main points here is "better the enemy you know than the one you don't". If both candidates are considered bad, people will probably think, "well, we already survived one term of (insert incumbent here), so we should be able to survive another".

Sure she wasn't an incumbent technically, but by de-facto, we saw last year how that logic turned out for Hillary.

I think we can safely say that people saw Hillary as MUCH worse than Obama.
Logged
Pollster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,756


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2017, 01:26:25 PM »

Getting voters to vote against an incumbent is essentially getting them to fire an employee and hire you to replace them. Not only must you make the argument as to why you should be hired, but you have to simultaneously make the argument as to why they should be fired, without alienating too many of the people who still think they're doing a good job.
Logged
UncleSam
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,498


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2017, 01:33:44 PM »

Incumbency will be a big advantage for Trump in 2020.

It is a natural human instinct to A. Hate to admit when you're wrong and B. Want to be part of the 'winning team'. Both of these psychological factors are far more important considerations than any political factors when evaluating incumbency.

Firstly, people who voted for Trump are loathe to admit they're wrong (or they just like him) and so are less likely to vote for someone else. This is a particularly strong force for 2020 because the Democratic Party has more or less branded everyone who voted for Trump as a racist bigot and the natural response to that is to tell the Democrats to f!$k right off. I doubt Trump will lose practically anyone who votes for him in 2020 simply because there has been zero push to say 'we get why you voted for him and we were wrong - we are now ready to address your concerns' on the left (note that this may well not be a good political strategy either - it would cause a revolt on the left among the base, and so you see the problem: there is now a big psychological divide between anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 and the base of the Democratic Party).

Secondly, for whatever reason, more people tend to remember voting for the winner than actually did. It is a bizarre phenomenon, but it happens and so there will actually be more people who think they voted for Trump (and so will be disinclined to vote otherwise in 2020, see above) than who voted for him in the first place.

If Trump's floor starts at 45.5 - 46% and anyone else he can convince is gravy, he starts out at least 2 or 3 points ahead of where he was in 2016 having absolutely nothing to do with his political achievements (or disasters) or his personal appeal (or repellant).

That's why incumbency is such an advantage. It's not as though Trump has anything more to run on now than he did last year, and it is doubtful he will have more come 2020 either. None of that matters. What matters is human psychology, and it's simply impossible given the Democrats' current strategy to hold him under about 47% of the vote.

Of course, you can win fairly comfortably against 47% of the vote (see: 2012), but it is very difficult and requires a charismatic unifier on the left. Otherwise, I'll bet Trump wins a plurality of the PV and a relative landslide in the electoral college regardless of if the dumpster fire that is his presidency rages on unabated or not.
Logged
Rookie Yinzer
RFKFan68
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2017, 02:10:42 PM »
« Edited: October 20, 2017, 02:14:40 PM by RFKFan68 »

I think another one of the main points here is "better the enemy you know than the one you don't". If both candidates are considered bad, people will probably think, "well, we already survived one term of (insert incumbent here), so we should be able to survive another".

Sure she wasn't an incumbent technically, but by de-facto, we saw last year how that logic turned out for Hillary.
Not really. Obama's charisma and popularity was not transferable. There were many who HATED Clinton and voted against her in the primaries 8 years prior before having Obama beg these same people to vote for the same scandal-laden, boring, old white lady from 2008. The people inclined to vote for the Democrat just stayed home. Obama at his worst approval ratings would have still beaten Trump.  
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,385
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2017, 02:37:17 PM »

I think another one of the main points here is "better the enemy you know than the one you don't". If both candidates are considered bad, people will probably think, "well, we already survived one term of (insert incumbent here), so we should be able to survive another".

Sure she wasn't an incumbent technically, but by de-facto, we saw last year how that logic turned out for Hillary.
Not really. Obama's charisma and popularity was not transferable. There were many who HATED Clinton and voted against her in the primaries 8 years prior before having Obama beg these same people to vote for the same scandal-laden, boring, old white lady from 2008. The people inclined to vote for the Democrat just stayed home. Obama at his worst approval ratings would have still beaten Trump.  

I'm inclined to believe that Obama would have beaten Trump in a landslide, if he could have run for a third term.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2017, 10:49:47 AM »
« Edited: October 22, 2017, 06:10:05 PM by pbrower2a »

Getting voters to vote against an incumbent is essentially getting them to fire an employee and hire you to replace them. Not only must you make the argument as to why you should be hired, but you have to simultaneously make the argument as to why they should be fired, without alienating too many of the people who still think they're doing a good job.

That is the poorest way to get a job. It's even less effective than mailing resumes and cover letters to potential employers. It is easier to get a job by looking for places with a high turnover, as in retail and fast food. You will find out why the turnover is so high -- despotic management, low pay, and practically no chance of improvement in life by staying there.

......

You might consider the Lichtman test.

Here are the 13 keys to the White House. They are stated as conditions that favor reelection of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the incumbent party loses.

http://marylandreporter.com/2012/11/08/presidential-champion-lichtmans-13-keys-are-still-the-winning-election-formula/

1.     Incumbent-party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections.
2.     Nomination contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3.     Incumbency: The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president.
4.     Third party: There is no significant third-party or independent campaign.
5.     Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6.     Long-term economy: Real annual per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the two previous terms.
7.     Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8.     Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9.     Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10.     Foreign or military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11.     Foreign or military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12.     Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13.     Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

These criteria would have told us that Eisenhower would beat Stevenson (twice), Kennedy would defeat Nixon, LBJ would defeat Goldwater, Nixon would defeat Humphrey and McGovern, Ford would lose to Carter, Reagan would defeat Carter and Mondale, the elder Bush would defeat Dukakis but lose to Clinton, Clinton would defeat  the elder Bush and then Dole, the younger Bush would defeat Kerry, and that Obama would win twice. It is ambiguous about 2000 and 2016, and in both elections  the winner of the popular vote would lose in the Electoral College.  

At this point, the only sure losing sign for Republicans in 2020 is (9)  -- scandal. (8 ) is close if it continues, and (10) is a matter of interpretation.

(1) will be decided definitively in about a year. I see no reason to expect the Republicans to not lose some House seats on the net.  
(2) this shows either that someone has ambition to rush the succession to the Presidency (like Ronald Reagan in 1976 or Ted Kennedy in 1980) if the President is having trouble. Just look at 1968 or 2016 for Democrats.
(3) So far this looks like a positive for the Republicans. It's tough to unseat an incumbent within one's own Party, so it is safe to assume that Donald Trump or (should the Devil take his soul) Mike Pence will be the incumbent President in November 2016 and will have the nomination.
(4) We will not know until the weather warms up in 2020.
(5) We really have no idea until 2020.
(6) It is more likely that we will have an economic meltdown in 2020 than a boom.  The Obama economy is what we still have. It is hard to see how the Republicans can keep it up while disparaging everything about Obama.
(7) One would expect such already. The Republicans certainly have an agenda, but they have yet to enact it so far. This is in part legislative failure.
(8 ) We are beginning to see it in the form of mass marches and protests. So to speak, we are already getting the oily rags together in a heap.
(9) This is already a huge negative for the Trump Administration.
(10 -- amended) The rest of the world seems to be trying to isolate his worst tendencies... but I can easily see him getting a war that mauls America. What Dubya got away with in 2004, Trump might not get away with. The President has badly mishandled the deaths of four American Special Forces soldiers in Niger. That  is a 'small' failure on the surface, but it is a failure. It bodes ill.    
(11) Do you see anything of the sort now? The big international news is the juvenile feud between the President and the King-in-all-but-name of North Korea, in which "double-dog-dare-you" has nuclear weapons as possible consequences. This bodes ill.
(12) See how President Trump holds up in 2020. The charisma that he had in 2016 might wear thin by then. He will not miraculously become a war hero by leading troops at the front line.
(13) With perhaps twenty potential Democratic nominees for President so far, this is now impossible to predict until the Democratic nominee of 2020 sews things up.  

(9) is undeniably false by now; the 8th and 10th keys are almost completely false now. Three answers are already false, in effect within nine months of this President's inauguration. The social unrest may largely be non-violent so far, but it is over many issues. The anti-Trump rallies are larger in scale than the Tea Party rallies of eight years ago, and they are even more civilized than the Tea Party rallies.   But there has been violence from the Alt Right, and President Trump
has bungled his response to them.

He is 3/5 of the way to being defeated in a re-election bid in nine months. The polls so far seem to show that.
Logged
Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.00


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2017, 03:25:03 PM »

For:

An actual record vs mere promises

Establishment money

Against:

Defense of a bad record, if record is bad

Keeping base enthused and convinced of threat, because fighting against is easier than fighting for.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.