A Historical Perspective

Bodington

Virgin
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Posts
216
There have been to date only three election cycles wherein the incumbent President was seeking election for a second term but was thwarted by failing to become the standard bearer for his Party. The first time it occurred was in the election of 1884. Chester Arthur was elevated to the Presidency in 1881 upon the assassination of President Garfield. Arthur sought election for a second term in 1884 but did not win his Party’s nomination and his successor lost in the general election to Grover Cleveland. The second time it occurred was in the 1968 election. Lyndon Johnson had become President in 1963 upon Kennedy’s assassination and was elected in 1964 for a full term. Since the remaining balance of Kennedy’s term was less than two years, Johnson was able to contest for a second full term in 1968, and he displayed every intention to do so. However, he performed so poorly in the New Hampshire primary that it looked like he could not win the Party’s nomination. As a result, he announced he would not seek re-election especially since he knew Robert Kennedy would contest the nomination. The latter was assassinated prior to the Party convention, and thus Humphrey became the candidate who went on to lose to Nixon in the general election.

And of course, the third time for this phenomenon has occurred in this current election cycle. Unlike Arthur and Johnson, Biden had snared enough delegate votes to secure the Party nomination, but it was not to be for Joe. Now if Harris does win, she will have succeeded whereas in the previous two occasions the Party that eschewed their incumbent Presidential candidate went on to lose the general election. If on the other hand, Trump wins, he will have replicated the outcomes of the 1884, 1888 and 1892 elections. Grover Cleveland won the 1884 election but was defeated for re-election in 1888. Undaunted he contested the 1892 election and thereby won a second term.
 
History repeats.

Those who forget are doomed...

History is cyclic because technological advances (like fire) do not abrogate basal human nature.

Translation: The more thing change, the more people remain the same.

Predictable and eventually a Hari Seldon will

put it to paper and equation...
 
Let me cross the ‘tees’ and dot the ‘eyes’ for those of you who miss the point of this thread. There have been some 36 Presidential elections since 1880 and similar circumstances surrounding this election have only occurred twice before. It stands to reason that if an incumbent President wishes to seek a second term and his Party denies him the opportunity, the Party is admitting to the electorate that he was not a good enough candidate in the first place and that this time around they are offering a better candidate. That is a hard concept to sell. That is why only an anal-retentive political junkie can recall who contested against Biden in the primaries; or against Trump in 2020; or against Obama in 2012; or against Bush in 2004; or against Clinton in 1996, and so on you get the picture.

That is the burden for VP Kamala Harris to overcome. Hatred of Trump can get you only so far but the albatross around Harris’ neck is to try and convince the independent voters that she is the better candidate than Biden who was the initial choice of the Democratic Party.
 
We are experiencing a rare event in history. It will be interesting to see what happens on the other side.

But no doubt that 2024 will be studied in future classes on Presidential elections
 
It stands to reason that if an incumbent President wishes to seek a second term and his Party denies him the opportunity, the Party is admitting to the electorate that he was not a good enough candidate in the first place and that this time around they are offering a better candidate. That is a hard concept to sell.

Depends on why the incumbent isn't renominated, not to mention who the other party is running. Besides, the Dems did not deny Biden the opportunity to run again, he stepped down voluntarily.
 
Depends on why the incumbent isn't renominated, not to mention who the other party is running. Besides, the Dems did not deny Biden the opportunity to run again, he stepped down voluntarily.
If you really think Biden stepped down voluntarily you are drinking a potent strength of Kool-Aide brewed by the Democratic Party propaganda.
 
If you really think Biden stepped down voluntarily you are drinking a potent strength of Kool-Aide brewed by the Democratic Party propaganda.
Come back when you've got evidence of that.
 
Back
Top