![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribBeing an incumbent President in America is a surprisingly secure political position. Simply put, incumbent Presidents aren't beaten, they loose. They either have serious primary challengers, splitting their own party, a third-party candidacy, or both.
For example, Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980 by virtue of John Anderson. It's also worth noting that Ted Kennedy ran a primary campaign against Carter, a campaign which didn't end until the first night of the convention.
This pattern of third-party and/or primary challengers happened in other elections. See 1992, where Bush The Elder was torpedoed by Ross Perot. Truman in 1952 lost the New Hampshire primary, and Taft in 1912 ran against Teddy Roosevelt both in the primary and as a third party. The only exception to this rule I can find is Herbert Hoover in 1932. He did have a primary challenger, but not a very effective one. Of course, Hoover was so unpopular that he was routinely pelted with rotten produce at his public appearances!
But this is not 1980. Obama has had no primary challenger and there is no third-party candidate. Oh, and by this point in the campaign, Reagan had been leading in the polls for weeks. Reagan never actually lost his lead in the polls - they got closer, but he never trailed.
For example, Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980 by virtue of John Anderson. It's also worth noting that Ted Kennedy ran a primary campaign against Carter, a campaign which didn't end until the first night of the convention.
This pattern of third-party and/or primary challengers happened in other elections. See 1992, where Bush The Elder was torpedoed by Ross Perot. Truman in 1952 lost the New Hampshire primary, and Taft in 1912 ran against Teddy Roosevelt both in the primary and as a third party. The only exception to this rule I can find is Herbert Hoover in 1932. He did have a primary challenger, but not a very effective one. Of course, Hoover was so unpopular that he was routinely pelted with rotten produce at his public appearances!
But this is not 1980. Obama has had no primary challenger and there is no third-party candidate. Oh, and by this point in the campaign, Reagan had been leading in the polls for weeks. Reagan never actually lost his lead in the polls - they got closer, but he never trailed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-08-10 03:07 pm (UTC)I have problems with that.
Obama is not Carter. He hasn't had a foreign policy catastrophe. He is a much better campaigner that what I've seen of Carter.
But, worse than that, Romney is not Reagan. Say what you like about Ronald Regan he could connect with people and do it well, and as you say, by this point in 1980 he had been leading.
Nate Silver did a piece yesterday on the excellent polling for Obama at the moment (everything except Rassmussen, which has been, frankly, up and down like an organ stop this cycle) saying that it wasn't time for Romney to panic. But if he doesn't get a decent convention bounce and hold it for a bit, then it really is because the options for pulling back are dwindling.