« Cato'$ Late$t | Main | edwards electricity »
So is this right? Seems to me that since Lincoln, the only candidates for president to ever defeat a sitting president are "outsiders" (e.g., like Dean) or plausible outsiders (e.g., like Edwards). Never since Lincoln has a Washington insider defeated a sitting president. Am I missing an example?
Cleveland beat HarrsonMcKinley beat Cleveland
Wilson bear Taft
FDR beat Hoover
Carter beat Ford
Clinton beat Bush
| Permalink | technorati
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://lessig.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1137
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference can kerry carry?:
» Rancho Santa Fe Homes for Sale from Rancho Santa Fe
Another discussion. Same topic, different because rancho santa fe homes and real estate are huge. San Diego real estate agents are great. [Read More]
Lessig Blog by Lawrence Lessig is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Comments (28)
More relevant, I think, is that Bush has nearly *ten times* the campaign cash that Kerry has:
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp?sort=C
73 Million vs. 7.9 Million
And Kerry still needs to spend some of it to win the nomination.
Granted, the nominee will get much more funding for the general election - but still, the money gap is daunting.
On the money issue, that's the way things are when you are a Democrat.... you run with less money and you simply hope for the best.
Regarding the Prof.'s observations, I would dispute the idea that the races where sitting Presidents have lost have all been against "Washington Outsiders."
The real common trend here is executive experience... they have all been governors. Being a governor provides real world experience with leading, which is something that Americans seem to value. I might argue that our MOST effective Presidents have had extensive legislative experience. JFK and LBJ come to mind.
But even being a governor isn't enough... some challengers who have lost have been Governors, Michael Dukakis comes to mind. Being outside of Washington is simply not sufficient. But Kerry will be an interesting test as to whether it is a prerequisite.
You've got the presidents wrong. Harrison "beat" incumbent Cleveland in 1888 though Cleveland won the popular vote. Then Cleveland won the presidency back in 1892 with an even larger popular majority.
Certainly Cleveland's restoration in 1892 was a case of an insider beating an insider.
But McKinley won an open seat in 1896.
Regarding the Prof.’s observations, I would dispute the idea that the races where sitting Presidents have lost have all been against “Washington Outsiders.”
actually, sean kellog, professor lessig’s observation appears depressingly dead on. here is a link showing all of the electoral college and popular vote for the US presidential elections since 1789. since 1868 it does appear as though no washington insider (i.e., congressman or senator) has beaten an incumbent president.
p.s. (professor lessig, add reagan defeats carter 1980 to your list)
and thank you seth finkelstein for your equally depressing (and equally accurate) information.
these data suggest kerry has nary a chance.
Well, we're on uncharted territory here for we've never before had a President who lost both the popular vote and electoral vote (or would have, if the counting had completed) and yet got into the White House. When, previously, was there an inaugural procession to the swearing in of a new President where the route was lined with protestors?
I don't think the past is any indication. As for the money, they can run commercials day and night in praise of Bush, but I know better, and my mind cannot be swayed unless Bush himself were to become a better President. Since I see no indication of that happening, it's irrelevant how much money Bush has. There are millions of Americans who feel even more strongly against Bush, some actually despise the man. Money won't help there. And the Red states are going to be Red anyway, so money won't help there either.
I don't think we've seen this precedent before. It might be as if Nixon had his scandal in his first team and then ran for re-election instead of resigning. Or if Clinton had his scandal in his first term and then ran for re-election. The way both men were despised after their scandals by half the population begins to approximate how half of America views Bush. We are going to find out for the first time (ever?) what happens when a man who is despised, viewed as a liar and a hypocrite, a war-monger, and a thief who stole the 2000 election runs for re-election. Will all the money in the world help such a man?
We'll soon find out.
There's lots of talk (largely in the same breath as Dean) about how the Internet is changing the campaign process. If a Washington insider gets the nomination, their success might turn on whether they can tap into the well-organized and largely anti-insider network Dean has established. If an insider can get "outsider support" he may be able to beat the trend.
I've heard a report that no one has ever beaten a sitting president with an approval rating as high as Bush has now, this late into the campaign season.
Worrying about a trend or tradition won't do much help, whether it's an "outsider" campaign or not. Whoever the Dems nominate will have to establish a new trend.
Bush's approval rating is only 50% right now, according to CBS and the NY Times. Worse (for him), his disapproval rating is 45%.
Carter was at 52/34 at this point in 1980. (graph)
Even if you go before the Civil War, it's very rare for a Senator or Congressman to win a general election when running against either a sitting President *or* a governor.
The paths to being US President seem to be the following:
(1) Vice-President to the previous President
(2) Governor of a state
(3) Military leader in a recent successful war
There are only a few who don't fit this pattern. Most of them weren't running against anyone with the above "qualifications". There were a couple of others, but I can't remember them offhand.
>Well, we’re on uncharted territory here for we’ve never before had a President >who lost both the popular vote and electoral vote (or would have, if the counting >had completed) and yet got into the White House.
Good point. The closest analogies (Hayes/Tilden, Harrison/Cleveland) are in Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, a disturbingly corrupt period. The former involved the Klansmen in the South executing violent coups, orchestrating election fraud, and intimidating voters, and of course the latter was related to that as well, since voting rights weren't restored until the 60s. In a sense both were indirect consequences of the abolition of slavery and the Civil War. The Johnson impeachment is also in this period and also seems like a remarkable analogy to something which happened not long ago....
I haven't been able to come to any conclusions about the present day based on Reconstruction history. But it's *definitely* the period to study if you want an analogous period. The big difference, of course, is that we didn't have a Civil War recently...
Six data points, however consistent, isn't really convincing. It's likely that you're right, but... Has a former Air Force officer ever been President? How about the Marines? For that matter, no one has ever won against an incumbent with a debilitating illness, but somehow I don't think Bush contracting polio would win him the election. So while it's easy to find a self-consistent trend, it's much harder to isolate the critical factors.
Of course, Dr. Lessig's trend is far more plausible than my examples, but I still have a hard time believing that it's really the most important point in the Kerry campaign.
The paths to being US President seem to be the following:
(1) Vice-President to the previous President
This is only a sure path if the president dies. Bush I succeeded Reagan, but the only precedent before that is Martin Van Buren. Which shows two things: (1) vice president isn't a sure thing at all, and (2) the past doesn't absolutely determine the future.
There's still hope that smart campaigning and a solid message can win.
Having 'US Senator' on one's resume appears to be an impediment to the Presidency, as well. In the last 40+ years, only JFK and Nixon have advanced (we'll never know about Bobby, sadly), while Goldwater, McGovern, Humphrey, McCarthy, Romney, Hart, Teddy, Mondale, Dole, and Gore fell by the wayside.
And for Governor I'd stipulate further that 'Sunbelt' Governor (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II) is a plus, while Northeastern Governor (Dukakis, Dean) is a drag.
Some more datums to drop in the bucket:
George H.W. Bush was an Air Force officer, if you count the Army Air Corps as the predecessor of the Air Force, which it was. But considering that the Air Force per se has only existed since the 50's and we've only had 10 Presidents in that time, the statistical sample is too small IMHO to draw any conclusions on anything. There have been Admirals around for a lot longer, and I don't think there have been any Admirals in the Presidency. Wesley Clark is a successful general, but so was MacArthur.
I think there are dozens of former Senators who never cut the mustard as Presidential primary candidates; perhaps it would be more instructive to stick to those who actually won their party's nominations but failed to get elected. Romney, Hart, and Ted Kennedy are distractions from the point, which is well-taken. Former Senators just don't seem to do well for some reason. Maybe it's because they are not in executive positions, and voters are looking for executive types. How many former Representatives have managed to get *elected* President (leaves out Ford who was an aberration)? I think Nixon was one, actually; I don't recall him as having served in the Senate before becoming Eisenhower's VP. Johnson was a Senator who made it, but only because of JFK.
I'd add Johnson, Nixon and Bush,Sr. to the list of Sunbelt Presidents. They may not have been Governors of their states, but they lived there (Florida and Cali for Nixon, dual citizenship in Texas for Bush).
So going by all this data and these theories, the best candidate the Democrats could put forward would be Clark. He's never been a northeastern Governor, he's not a former Senator, and he's been a successful General (in a limited way). Too bad I still see Dean as the man I most support. I guess I'll just go ahead and waste my vote on a northeastern governor.
Reagan beat Carter
Oh gee, Nate. That is so tired.
But true nevertheless.
The phrase "Washington Insider" has no meaning. Even if we attach some sort of meaning to it, for example -- someone who has worked in Washington the majority of their career -- it tells us very little about a person.
Arguing that you should not support Kerry because he is a "Washington Insider" or because he is "likely to lose" is patently ridiculous. It is akin to arguing that because tech stocks have done poorly over the last few years you should not invest in any tech companies and that any such investment is likely to lose you money.
Candidates, like stocks, should be invested in based on your assesment of the fundamentals. In the case of candidates, the fundamentals are a candidate's character, intellect, experience, heart, courage, and history of work.
Senator Kerry is by any measure a man of character. His capacity to understand and speak intelligently on complex issues is almost unparalelled in or out of Congress. He knows the complex process of Washington and how to work in it as a result of his experience. His courage is unquestioned -- how many people do you know with three purple hearts.
Couple of housekeeping items:
-- There's a small typo ("bear" for "beat") in the root item.
-- Kerry doesn't have as much cash as Bush, but (A) his wife is worth $100 million and (B) once the Democratic nominee is selected, presumably they will be able to raise a whole lot more money than they can now, with such a crowded primary field.
Meanwhile, I'm simply appalled at the coarsening of the campaign coverage on the Times op-ed page. David Brooks is bad enough, but Maureen Dowd has gone completely overboard, committing another totally uncalled-for atrocity against Howard Dean in Sunday's paper. (Click my URL for a link to more on this.)
>The paths to being US President seem to be the following:
> (1) Vice-President to the previous President
>This is only a sure path if the president dies.
Or resigns; don't forget Ford. ;-)
>Bush I succeeded Reagan, but the only precedent before
>that is Martin Van Buren.
Off the top of my head, what about Washington-Adams-Jefferson-Madison-Monroe?
Of course the first two were under the old scheme for electing vice-presidents, so don't count. And Jefferson established single-party rule, which pretty much sewed that up.
"In the case of candidates, the fundamentals are a candidate?s character, intellect, experience, heart, courage, and history of work."
Intellect is precisely what I'm not so happy with about Kerry. Of course all the Democratic candidates are intellectual giants compared to G W Bush, but I'd rather have Clark, Dean, or Edwards for intelligence.
Incidentally, Northeastern governors have won in the past, a lot. Dukakis (Governor vs. VP) and Mondale (Governor vs. Governor) don't make a trend.
Governors do seem to have a significantly better chance than Senators in the general election, though; that trend is long enough to be believable. Has a Senator ever defeated a Governor in a general Presidential election? I believe it happened once. And Senator vs. Governor is really a reather common lineup for the election.
The analytical flaw here is that "Senators" and "Governors" are not classifications that invite for equal comparisons among those who belong to each.
It's like saying that no AFC team could ever beat any NFC team. It depends on the teams in the game.
Governor Dean, for example, is not Governor Clinton -- he doesn't have the same political skills nor does he have the same encyclopedic understanding of public policy. Senator Kerry is unlike any Senator we have had run for the Senate in decades. He is an exceptional man.
The idea that Dean, a man whose policy positions have changed more over the last decade than Madonna's wardrobe, is intellectually superior to Senator Kerry is laughable. That Senator Clark could hold a candle to Senator Kerry in his understanding of, and commitment to, progressive domestic public policies is equally laughable. The man voted for Reagan -- the king of voodoo economics -- and he voted Nixon. Yeah, he's a genius that one.
I'll give you the idea that Edwards puts up a good fight on intellect. But in terms of experience, Kerry dwarfs him. He'd make a great VP though. It would give him eight years to bulk up for a good run for the presidency.
Does anybody have any thoughts about why the U.S. has never put an admiral in the presidency, while electing half a dozen or so generals. (Though we have had a couple of ex-navy lieutenants).
Lot's of stats, and argument about stats. No one is asking "why" the stats are the way they are.
The reason it is so difficult to win the presidency with a congressional background is simple - you have a record. You've actually voted on things, and done the unspeakable - compromized.
Bush II (that is to say, cheney/rove/wolfowitz) will rip Kerry a new one (or a new dozen) over all the votes Kerry has cast since 1984 (?). Anyone could. With any senate record from either side of the aisle. And yes, it really is just that simple. Watch and see. Again.
of course kerry can carry, he's a man. but can he carry a nation? maybe, but does that mean a woman cannot carry a nation also because she is a woman? this why you should vote Bush even if you're a democrat. if a democratic candidate wins in '04 then Hillary Clinton cannot run in '08 unless the democratic president that wins fails miserably in some way. i think i would much rather have a historic event that has had no precedent like a women president to happen, which is why even democrats should vote for george bush in '04, so that hillary clinton can run and win in '08. if there is anyone who should be the first women president in the history of the united states it should be hillary clinton. imagine all the women in this country who could vicariously live through that achievement, especially those who have had unfaithful husbands. i would bet that if george bush were to win in '04 and knowing that hillary would probably run and win in '08, he would have the country and the rest of the world running excellently and even spit-shined as any good cowboy would for a lady.
-(~)
The idea that Dean, a man whose policy positions have changed more over the last decade than Madonna’s wardrobe, is intellectually superior to Senator Kerry is laughable.
posted by Danny Sepulveda on Jan 28 04 at 2:30 PM
*************
Kerry is undoubtedly intellectual, but he is a dilettante. Give me Dean any day. While Kerry is till making up his mind as to how casting an opinion will profit himself, Dean weighs in with incisive judgement. Yes, Dean's truthfulness and moral rectitude isn't always comfortable. But it is surely infinitely preferable to 'business as usual'.
Do you want a leader who can regurgitate ideas, or have them?
Kerry or Dean?
What do Presidents Jonh Addams, Thomas Jefferson, and Monroe have in common?
What do they have in common? Aside from them being dead and on Mount Rushmore.