jamny
Footballguy
A few facts:
While I can see people like Flake or Kasich going for it in 2020, I don't see anyone capable at making a serious bid for the nomination. Obviously a lot can change in 2 years, or even just the next year.
The last three incumbent presidents who were defeated (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush) all have one thing in common: They faced a fairly serious primary challenger.
Ronald Reagan for Ford, Ted Kennedy for Carter, Pat Buchanan for Bush.
In contrast, the other modern presidents who won second terms — Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama — did not draw major primary challengers.3
Defining a “major” primary challenger is tricky and somewhat subjective, as tons of people run for president in both parties every year. We’ve used various complicated criteria to define “serious” candidates in the past. For our purposes here, though, suffice it to say that the re-nominations of Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama were never really in doubt.
It’s not totally clear which way the causation runs here — did the primary challenge weaken Ford, Carter and H.W. Bush ahead of the general election, or was it simply a symptom of a weakness that already existed? I tend to believe the second theory.
That said, no primary challenger has succeeded in displacing an incumbent president since 1884, which I believe tends to discourage would-be challengers. Challenging a sitting president and losing is not a great mark to have on one’s political career.
While I can see people like Flake or Kasich going for it in 2020, I don't see anyone capable at making a serious bid for the nomination. Obviously a lot can change in 2 years, or even just the next year.
Last edited by a moderator: