Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't people learn anything from the four years they already gave the guy? I'm genuinely surprised that anyone gets re-elected--but then, we the people aren't the ones making those decisions.
There are a lot of reasons why incumbents are more likely to win re-election. One reason is that people tend to be risk-averse; they'd often rather go with a known quantity rather than an unknown quantity even if they aren't particularly fond of the incumbent. People may not be all that fond of a particular incumbent, but they know how the incumbent acts and governs so they know what they are getting; they may like the opposition a little more but they have no idea who the non-incumbent will actually act once in office.
Aside from that, incumbents have a much easier time raising money, they have greater access to party resources and they have much better developed networks. They also have much better developed campaign infrastructure from previous races.
Furthermore, incumbents are less likely to be derailed by 'trivial' matters such as the one this particular thread is about. Since an incumbent has actually held the office for which they are seeking re-election, the electorate is able to judge them based on the way they governed while in that office. Non-incumbents, on the other-hand, being 'unknown quantities' have to be judged on the basis of other things which is why people are more likely to not vote for them based on trivial crap.
The academic literature on this topic has identified several other reasons for the power of incumbency, but these are most of the major ones.
There are a lot of reasons why incumbents are more likely to win re-election. One reason is that people tend to be risk-averse; they'd often rather go with a known quantity rather than an unknown quantity even if they aren't particularly fond of the incumbent. People may not be all that fond of a particular incumbent, but they know how the incumbent acts and governs so they know what they are getting; they may like the opposition a little more but they have no idea who the non-incumbent will actually act once in office.
Aside from that, incumbents have a much easier time raising money, they have greater access to party resources and they have much better developed networks. They also have much better developed campaign infrastructure from previous races.
Furthermore, incumbents are less likely to be derailed by 'trivial' matters such as the one this particular thread is about. Since an incumbent has actually held the office for which they are seeking re-election, the electorate is able to judge them based on the way they governed while in that office. Non-incumbents, on the other-hand, being 'unknown quantities' have to be judged on the basis of other things which is why people are more likely to not vote for them based on trivial crap.
The academic literature on this topic has identified several other reasons for the power of incumbency, but these are most of the major ones.
Or, as a German newspaper's headlines asked after the Bush re-appointment:
Didn't see any stories about it. If not, how long since a President didn't attend Christmas services?
who cares? My mom took us to church every week growing up, but not of Christmas Eve or Christmas. We were spending time with family on those days. get a life.
There are a lot of reasons why incumbents are more likely to win re-election. One reason is that people tend to be risk-averse; they'd often rather go with a known quantity rather than an unknown quantity even if they aren't particularly fond of the incumbent. People may not be all that fond of a particular incumbent, but they know how the incumbent acts and governs so they know what they are getting; they may like the opposition a little more but they have no idea who the non-incumbent will actually act once in office.
Aside from that, incumbents have a much easier time raising money, they have greater access to party resources and they have much better developed networks. They also have much better developed campaign infrastructure from previous races.
Furthermore, incumbents are less likely to be derailed by 'trivial' matters such as the one this particular thread is about. Since an incumbent has actually held the office for which they are seeking re-election, the electorate is able to judge them based on the way they governed while in that office. Non-incumbents, on the other-hand, being 'unknown quantities' have to be judged on the basis of other things which is why people are more likely to not vote for them based on trivial crap.
The academic literature on this topic has identified several other reasons for the power of incumbency, but these are most of the major ones.
You were paying attention in college. I like that.
There are a lot of reasons why incumbents are more likely to win re-election. One reason is that people tend to be risk-averse; they'd often rather go with a known quantity rather than an unknown quantity even if they aren't particularly fond of the incumbent. People may not be all that fond of a particular incumbent, but they know how the incumbent acts and governs so they know what they are getting; they may like the opposition a little more but they have no idea who the non-incumbent will actually act once in office.
Aside from that, incumbents have a much easier time raising money, they have greater access to party resources and they have much better developed networks. They also have much better developed campaign infrastructure from previous races.
Furthermore, incumbents are less likely to be derailed by 'trivial' matters such as the one this particular thread is about. Since an incumbent has actually held the office for which they are seeking re-election, the electorate is able to judge them based on the way they governed while in that office. Non-incumbents, on the other-hand, being 'unknown quantities' have to be judged on the basis of other things which is why people are more likely to not vote for them based on trivial crap.
The academic literature on this topic has identified several other reasons for the power of incumbency, but these are most of the major ones.
Like I said--we're not really the ones who make the decisions. However, we know how bad they are--so why would we put them back in the position they sucked at so badly before?
I would still like a "vote of no confidence" placed on the ballot. That would really tell our government what we think of them.
Like I said--we're not really the ones who make the decisions. However, we know how bad they are--so why would we put them back in the position they sucked at so badly before?
I would still like a "vote of no confidence" placed on the ballot. That would really tell our government what we think of them.
You're assuming that all incumbents are bad, that is not necessarily the case. A lot of people are willing to re-elect someone who is merely adequate rather than elect someone who could end up being really inadequate.
That aside, one really interesting phenomenon in regards to incumbency in Congress is that people generally give Congress extremely poor ratings while simultaneously giving their representatives very high ratings. The reason is this: Senators and Representatives work hard to secure 'pork-barrel projects' for their districts. These projects often directly benefit their constituents so and, in doing so, dramatically increase the chances that they will be re-elected by these constituents. Yet, at the same time these constituents have much fewer reasons to like other people's representatives leading them to dislike Congress but like their own Congressmen. This is why Congress can have such low approval ratings yet simultaneously have such low turnover from election to election!
Cava, do you know what an 'incumbent' is? An incumbent is someone who is running for re-election to the office that they currently hold. When Bill Clinton ran for re-election to the presidency in 1996 he was an incumbent. When George W. Bush ran for re-election to the presidency in 2004 he was an incumbent. When Senators run for re-election to the seat that they currently hold, they are running as incumbents..
I'm well aware of what incumbency means. You missed the subtlety of my point. With the moneyed interests (including the military/industrial complex) that now control our politics and the way the electoral college works, a democratic presidential incumbent will have to work much harder than a Republican. Bush did a lot of stupid things and was considered so intellectually flawed that a Democrat in that situation would have been a sure one-termer. I do not believe a democratic incumbent presidential incumbent, particularly a liberal one, enjoys the same advantages as a Republican in our current environment, that's all. I don't believe that should be all that controversial. Clinton had to trade off quite a bit and was fortunate to face a lackluster opponent in '96.
Sorry the real world no longer complies with your textbooks. Check back with me in 2012.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
get a life.
