Dean MoreBlandofaCandidateThanEvenIWouldBe.
Thanks for finding those charts! I wasn’t skeptical of the idea, but I tend to mistrust things that merely “feel” true. I think avoiding confirmation bias takes active effort and part of that is being cautious about shibboleths.
In what sense? This is another thing we say, but it’s hard to see how it’s supported by data or even how you could support it with data. I can’t think of a situation in the last 100 years where a sitting president bowed out after one term and endorsed a successor. Nor a situation where a primary challenge to a sitting president gained any traction. I think incumbency is very much an advantage in primary elections, but incumbents do lose the general. If I’m a presidential candidate I’d much rather have good polling than incumbency. To me the single greatest advantages in winning the presidency are the ability to run the executive administration of the national government and guide policy in a favorable direction.
I looked this up last time we had this discussion.
You support it with argument. The presidency is a pretty big platform from which to campaign, with a lot of advantages non-incumbent candidates don’t easily attain.
I just don’t know if that says anything either way without understanding the context of those five elections. What were the reasons the incumbent didn’t run in those five elections, what was going on in the country, etc.
I mean, if Biden loses I hope the takeaway isn’t going to be “Incumbents nearly always win except in years where there is a total eclipse over the US” or something. 
A serious relic who I am glad ruined his career with that. He was a relic from the Clinton-Obama era. As old as Biden is, he’s been a massive improvement over those two, but we really need new blood- preferably someone who can fuse the Southern Black with the leftist bases to form a winning coalition that will do what is needed.
That’s what the Dems need, and those politicians are a decade away from being presidential I think.
Conversely a non-incumbent candidate doesn’t simultaneously have to do the job of being president and can run on change when a president’s polling numbers are down. Biden won in 2020 despite not being an incumbent.
Of course people win without being incumbents. It doesn’t mean incumbency isn’t an advantage.
didn’t we have this discussion like 3 months ago? and 3 months before that?
On the other hand, George W Bush won as an incumbent despite being a literal moron.
Yes, repeatedly.
I feel like if someone wants to challenge a widely-held view like the advantage of incumbency, then the burden is on them.
I think there are several posters here who are in pits of depression and are trying to pull everyone else down with them.
Yes, we know things aren’t looking great for Biden. Yes, we all wish his poll numbers were better. But maybe ask yourselves if you’re just posting here to get us all to agree with you that everything is terrible and things are hopeless.
Because if Trump wins and you come back to this thread shouting “I TOLD YOU SO!” it’s not going to be as satisfying as you think it will be.
I think you can make a case in a hyper-polarized society, incumbency is less of an advantage than it used to be, but I’d disagree with it.
Ultimately, this is going to be an election about what scares you more. Hopefully enough of ours show up, and enough of theirs get discouraged or voter ID keeps them from voting or something.
From Simon Rosenberg:
neither candidate is at 270 Electoral College votes right now in current polling, and that he only way a candidate can be “leading” in a Presidential election is if they are ahead outside of margin of error in states getting to 270. For Donald Trump to get to 270 he has to win AZ, GA, NC, NV and at least one of three blue wall states of MI, PA, WI. In the last six battleground state polls - CBS, Emerson, Morning Consult, NYT LV and RV, Prime - Trump only leads outside of margin of error in a one of these three states one time. 17 of the 18 polls have these states within margin of error, tied. And that one was in Michigan in NYT RVs, and we have other polls showing Biden ahead there. So what this tells us that is Trump is not indicatively ahead in any of these three blue wall states, and therefore he is not leading in the election .
Yes, this is what I fear is going on here. It’s tiresome.
Yes, the election is in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. That’s the whole ball game.
I would hope that we could all have a reasonable discussion about the election without turning this into an echo chamber. And if some of us hypothesize about a different candidate running, what’s the big deal? It’s not like we’re affecting anything one way or another. And as one of the few dissenters regarding the Biden candidacy, I don’t feel that I am trying to “pull others down with me”. It’s all just talk. And I would certainly hope that if (God forbid) Biden loses to Trump, that we could all discuss what led to that shitty conclusion without resulting to “I TOLD YOU SO” on one hand and “STFU” on the other. We’re all friends here.
oh my…I need context. And maybe a gif.
I guess these are popping up in people’s mailboxes in Texas. Haven’t been able to verify yet.
“Your voting record is public…your neighbors are watching and will know if you miss this critical runoff election.”
“We will notify President Trump if you don’t vote. You can’t afford to have that on your record.”
“We are sending an official list of Republicans who fail to vote in the upcoming runoff to President Trump.”
“We will contact you after the election to make sure you voted!”