Incumbency: Is the 'incumbency advantage' overrated? Can it be a disadvantage? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:15:25 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Incumbency: Is the 'incumbency advantage' overrated? Can it be a disadvantage? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Incumbency: Is the 'incumbency advantage' overrated? Can it be a disadvantage?  (Read 9377 times)
I Can Now Die Happy
NYC Millennial Minority
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,949
United States
Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: -4.70

P P
« on: September 01, 2018, 07:42:13 PM »

Here are my thoughts.

When it comes to primaries at the local, state, and national level, incumbency poses a huge advantage. Name recognition is one of the most important factors in primaries, after all. This advantage is arguably even larger at the state and Presidential levels. Off the top of my head, I can name a few cases of House Reps getting primaried out (Crowley, Brat, Sanford), but I'd need to do some research when it comes to Senators and Presidents. I suppose Luther Strange might count for the Senate. This especially applies when conditions are going well for the incumbent. I can't think of a case where someone managed to primary out a popular incumbent.

However, when it comes to the general election, I think that incumbency doesn't mean as much. I'd also argue that it can be a real disadvantage if conditions are bad, and in those cases nominating a fresher face can be more advantageous. For instance, Ted Kennedy arguably would have performed better than Carter did in 1980 due to the fact that he wouldn't be tied to the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Now, IIRC Carter was initially leading Reagan in the polls, so you could attribute that to incumbency, but that was probably moreso the fact that Reagan still had the perception of an extremist, and required months of hard campaigning along with negative conditions in order to close the gap. Ford is an example of the opposite - an incumbent who started out at a disadvantage due to the anti-establishment mood of the country who almost worked himself up to closing the massive gap between him and Carter.

One could also argue that the incumbency advantage doesn't mean as much when the country is polarized. The last two incumbent Presidential elections - Obama in 2012 and Bush in 2004, were relatively close, though that was arguably because neither were incredibly popular at the time. In contrast, 1996 was a solid victory for Clinton. If you buy the 'Ross Perot ruined George HW Bush's chances' theory, then it took a high performing third party vote splitter to get HW to lose.

You can argue that incumbency is a huge advantage in the general when things are going well. 1984 and 1972 and 1964 produced landslide victories for the incumbent. You have a high percentage of the non-partisan electorate thinking "the person we have right now is doing fine, why rock the boat?" I don't think we'll have landslides as high as those in the current environment, but 2020 could see Trump having a same "2016 states +a few additional" if things are going well for him. Conversely, it could be close to an Obama 08 style victory for the Democrats if things go the other way.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.019 seconds with 12 queries.