Also enjoy the poll...
One huge advantage incumbants enjoy. If you voted for them to start with, you usually won't admit you made a mistake, even to yourself in the privacy of a voting booth. So not surprisingly, of the seven incumbants who have stood for re-election since WWII, five actually increased their vote totals.
Eisenhower- 33 million in 1952, 35 million in 1956.
Nixon- 31 million in 1968, 46 million in 1972
Reagan 44 million in 1980, 54 million in 1984
Clinton - 45 million in 1992, 47 million in 1996
Bush-43- 50 million in 2000, 62 million in 2004
For purposes of this discussion, Truman, Johnson and Ford don't count as "incumbants", because they were filling out someone else's term.
"But, Joe," you ask, "what about the two guys who got LESS votes?" Ah, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Carter got 40 million in 1976, when he barely edged out Jerry Ford's 39 million. In 1980 he got 35 million. Reagan got 5 million more than Ford, but Anderson got 6 million votes. More than likely, most of those 6 million Anderson voters came out of the folks who voted for Carter four years earlier.
Bush the Elder got 48 million in 1988, but a mere 39 million in 1992. Clinton did improve his vote total over Dukakis by 3 million votes, but the real bleeding loss was the 19 million who voted for H. Ross Perot.
In short, the presense of third party candidates enabled those people to admit they had made a mistake without forcing them to vote for the opposition party.
Incidently, didn't vote for Obama, probably won't vote for him next time. (Although if the GOP nominates Romney, I won't vote GOP, either.) But I do find this interesting.
To read more...
President Elect
One huge advantage incumbants enjoy. If you voted for them to start with, you usually won't admit you made a mistake, even to yourself in the privacy of a voting booth. So not surprisingly, of the seven incumbants who have stood for re-election since WWII, five actually increased their vote totals.
Eisenhower- 33 million in 1952, 35 million in 1956.
Nixon- 31 million in 1968, 46 million in 1972
Reagan 44 million in 1980, 54 million in 1984
Clinton - 45 million in 1992, 47 million in 1996
Bush-43- 50 million in 2000, 62 million in 2004
For purposes of this discussion, Truman, Johnson and Ford don't count as "incumbants", because they were filling out someone else's term.
"But, Joe," you ask, "what about the two guys who got LESS votes?" Ah, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Carter got 40 million in 1976, when he barely edged out Jerry Ford's 39 million. In 1980 he got 35 million. Reagan got 5 million more than Ford, but Anderson got 6 million votes. More than likely, most of those 6 million Anderson voters came out of the folks who voted for Carter four years earlier.
Bush the Elder got 48 million in 1988, but a mere 39 million in 1992. Clinton did improve his vote total over Dukakis by 3 million votes, but the real bleeding loss was the 19 million who voted for H. Ross Perot.
In short, the presense of third party candidates enabled those people to admit they had made a mistake without forcing them to vote for the opposition party.
Incidently, didn't vote for Obama, probably won't vote for him next time. (Although if the GOP nominates Romney, I won't vote GOP, either.) But I do find this interesting.
To read more...
President Elect
Last edited: