Wrapping Up Our "Elections Without Incumbents" Series
2016 will be another election year without an incumbent President seeking to keep his job. While there is a very remote possibility of an incumbent Vice-President running (if Joe Biden changes his mind), it is highly unlikely that this will happen. In the past few weeks we've looked back on previous presidential elections in which the incumbent president was not the candidate of either of the two major political parties. What lessons have we learned from this review?
Although every election year has its own unique features (and so far 2016 appears to be full of that), there are some themes which emerge from the lessons of history. Here are five that I've spotted:
1. Even if the incumbent president isn't running in the race, his record is. Ask John McCain, Al Gore, Adlai Stevenson, or Hubert Humphrey whether or not their predecessor's record was a factor in their race to the white house. McCain and Stevenson both ran for the same party as an incumbent president whose popularity was sharply on the decline. Even though Bill Clinton had presided over a period of good economic times, Al Gore was running against an opponent who promised to restore some of the dignity to the office that Clinton had tarnished with his liaison with Monica Lewinsky. On the flip side, Gore failed to turn the positive aspects of Clinton's presidency into an asset.
In the 2016 election, Barack Obama's record will be an issue. The pros and cons of economic recovery following the 2008 mortgage crisis, foreign policy issues during the Obama presidency such as the threat of ISIS and the Iranian nuclear negotiations as well as health care reform will all be rehashed and debated. Who will this benefit? Will voters be demand change or will they find security in the status quo? Stay tuned.
2. "It's the economy stupid." A bad economy, such as the one that existed leading up to the 2008 election, can really hamstring the candidate of the incumbent party. A good economy does not necessarily guarantee the party of the incumbent a win (just ask Al Gore), but it certainly takes a huge weapon away from its opponent. In the absence of some other urgent issue such as a war or other catastrophe, voters tend to vote on pocketbook issues.
3. The number two spot on the ticket never matters. Dan Quayle was skewered in the debate with Lloyd Bensen, but this wasn't the first thing on voters minds in 1988. George H. Bush able to win a decisive victory, even with Quayle as a drag on the ticket. While the bloom off of Sarah Palin's rose quickly faded after several embarrassing media encounters, she wasn't the reason for John McCain's loss. In 2000 George W. Bush's failure to select a running mate with more charisma than Dick Cheney wasn't on the list of reasons for the outcome of the contest. Running mates are generally chosen for internal party reasons, to bring divergent factions back into the fold, and also to fill in a gap lacking on the candidate's resume. While they may make for interesting distractions during the campaign, candidates don't win or lose because of the number two on the ticket.
4. Even the good guys go negative. More accurately, their campaigns go negative. In a close election (and they all seem close at one point or another), negativity will come out of a campaign and the person at the head of the ticket never calls off the dogs. Herbert Hoover may not have personally spread anti-Catholic rhetoric against Al Smith, but he took advantage of it. James Cox said nothing when the rumors that Warren Harding was part African-American were spreading. Even Barack Obama continued to misquote what John McCain said about how long Americans would remain in Iraq. Nobody takes the high road any more, if they ever did. By all indicators, 2016 promises more of the same.
5. Fear sells. Even with all of Dwight Eisenhower's accomplishments, John Kennedy scared voters into believing that the USA was experiencing a missile deficit with the Soviets. Although his campaign preached a message of "hope", Barack Obama took advantage of voters' fears about a housing crisis, potential bank failure and two seemingly never-ending wars. William McKinley's surrogates warned voters of the perils of a silver-backed dollar, while Warren Harding's cry for a "return to normalcy" implied that a Democratic victory would mean more turmoil. Richard Nixon played on voters' fears of more mounting casualties in Vietnam and tried to sell them on the idea that he could end the conflict sooner than his opponent. The winning candidate is often the one best able to spin things so that the voters believe that a victory for the opponent equates with the coming of the Apocalypse.
What does all of this portend for 2016? It's too early to tell, but history will be made in this election. Even with all of the lessons of history to draw from, something tells me that 2016 will write its own new chapter.
Although every election year has its own unique features (and so far 2016 appears to be full of that), there are some themes which emerge from the lessons of history. Here are five that I've spotted:
1. Even if the incumbent president isn't running in the race, his record is. Ask John McCain, Al Gore, Adlai Stevenson, or Hubert Humphrey whether or not their predecessor's record was a factor in their race to the white house. McCain and Stevenson both ran for the same party as an incumbent president whose popularity was sharply on the decline. Even though Bill Clinton had presided over a period of good economic times, Al Gore was running against an opponent who promised to restore some of the dignity to the office that Clinton had tarnished with his liaison with Monica Lewinsky. On the flip side, Gore failed to turn the positive aspects of Clinton's presidency into an asset.
In the 2016 election, Barack Obama's record will be an issue. The pros and cons of economic recovery following the 2008 mortgage crisis, foreign policy issues during the Obama presidency such as the threat of ISIS and the Iranian nuclear negotiations as well as health care reform will all be rehashed and debated. Who will this benefit? Will voters be demand change or will they find security in the status quo? Stay tuned.
2. "It's the economy stupid." A bad economy, such as the one that existed leading up to the 2008 election, can really hamstring the candidate of the incumbent party. A good economy does not necessarily guarantee the party of the incumbent a win (just ask Al Gore), but it certainly takes a huge weapon away from its opponent. In the absence of some other urgent issue such as a war or other catastrophe, voters tend to vote on pocketbook issues.
3. The number two spot on the ticket never matters. Dan Quayle was skewered in the debate with Lloyd Bensen, but this wasn't the first thing on voters minds in 1988. George H. Bush able to win a decisive victory, even with Quayle as a drag on the ticket. While the bloom off of Sarah Palin's rose quickly faded after several embarrassing media encounters, she wasn't the reason for John McCain's loss. In 2000 George W. Bush's failure to select a running mate with more charisma than Dick Cheney wasn't on the list of reasons for the outcome of the contest. Running mates are generally chosen for internal party reasons, to bring divergent factions back into the fold, and also to fill in a gap lacking on the candidate's resume. While they may make for interesting distractions during the campaign, candidates don't win or lose because of the number two on the ticket.
4. Even the good guys go negative. More accurately, their campaigns go negative. In a close election (and they all seem close at one point or another), negativity will come out of a campaign and the person at the head of the ticket never calls off the dogs. Herbert Hoover may not have personally spread anti-Catholic rhetoric against Al Smith, but he took advantage of it. James Cox said nothing when the rumors that Warren Harding was part African-American were spreading. Even Barack Obama continued to misquote what John McCain said about how long Americans would remain in Iraq. Nobody takes the high road any more, if they ever did. By all indicators, 2016 promises more of the same.
5. Fear sells. Even with all of Dwight Eisenhower's accomplishments, John Kennedy scared voters into believing that the USA was experiencing a missile deficit with the Soviets. Although his campaign preached a message of "hope", Barack Obama took advantage of voters' fears about a housing crisis, potential bank failure and two seemingly never-ending wars. William McKinley's surrogates warned voters of the perils of a silver-backed dollar, while Warren Harding's cry for a "return to normalcy" implied that a Democratic victory would mean more turmoil. Richard Nixon played on voters' fears of more mounting casualties in Vietnam and tried to sell them on the idea that he could end the conflict sooner than his opponent. The winning candidate is often the one best able to spin things so that the voters believe that a victory for the opponent equates with the coming of the Apocalypse.
What does all of this portend for 2016? It's too early to tell, but history will be made in this election. Even with all of the lessons of history to draw from, something tells me that 2016 will write its own new chapter.