Redstate

By dingo Posted in Archived — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The conventional wisdom is that it is very hard for a President’s Party to win a third straight term in the White House because American voters, in the modern era, tend to view the Presidency as the most important office in our nation, and thus they tend to hold its incumbents responsible for virtually everything that goes wrong, our right, in our nation and in the world. Since there are always plenty of things that can go wrong, this presents a problem for an incumbent Party when that Party seeks a third straight term in the Presidency (and, since 1952, without the benefit of the incumbent running for re-election).

I, and others at this blog, have assumed this third term “curse” exists in many of our comments here. But, since I enjoy Presidential history, and since I have some time on my hands, I decided to take a closer examination of this third term curse, by examining the past 100 years of Presidential races. Since 1904, the first third term race in my time period, there have been sixteen third term elections. This means that sixteen times the incumbent party has gone for a third (or fourth or fifth) term. (I see no reason to distinguish the fourth and fifth term attempts from third term attempts; logic states that the same factors which make it hard to win a third term should make it even tougher for the Party to win post-third terms.) The incumbent party was successful seven times; the other nine times they were not successful.

Successful attempts:
Theodore Roosevelt in 1904
William Taft in 1908
Herbert Hoover in 1928
Franklin Roosevelt in 1940
Franklin Roosevelt in 1944
Harry Truman in 1948
George H. W. Bush in 1988

Unsuccessful attempts:
William Taft in 1912
James Cox in 1920
Herbert Hoover in 1932
Adlai Stevenson in 1952
Richard Nixon in 1960
Hubert Humphrey in 1968
Gerald Ford in 1976
George H. W. Bush in 1992
Al Gore in 2000

Right off the bat, I notice some interesting things about these elections. First, overall it is almost as likely for an incumbent Party to win a third term as it is for it to lose one. Second, this changes for the last half a century, where there have been five losses, but only one success. However, third, also during the last half a century, all but one of the losses (Bush in 1992) have been in extremely close elections – Nixon in 1960, Humphrey in 1968, Ford in 1976, and Gore in 2000. (And yes, I fully expect one of you smart alecks will say that Gore really won.) Fourth, it is interesting to me that all of these losses, and the one victory, during the last half a century were all considered truly competitive races; each candidate in these races was widely viewed to have a legitimate chance of victory (check out the papers of the time). Fifth, it is fascinating, in retrospect, that some of the losers actually came so close, considering that they were running during such a bad economy. In 1960, Nixon almost won – or maybe he was cheated? – after the 1958 economic collapse; Ford almost won despite tremendous economic problems and the corruption of Watergate in 1976. Sixth, even an unpopular war is no guarantee of a huge loss - Humphrey almost won in a year where thousands of Americans were being killed in Vietnam and his party was being torn apart by anti-war sentiment. (And he was the sitting Vice President!) Seventh, only twice has the incumbent Party nominated a candidate from outside the sitting Administration – in 1920, when James Cox, the Governor of OH, ran; and in 1952, when Adlai Stevenson, the Governor of IL, ran. Both lost solidly, although under very unique circumstances, which (I suspect) are not likely to be duplicated today. Cox ran against the perfect storm of problems, and ran in the worst possible way (see below). Stevenson lost because he ran against Eisenhower, a national hero.

So, let’s take this a step further, and see if we can see any parallels between the election of 2008 and any of these prior third term elections. Currently, there is an ongoing, unpopular, war. Currently, the economy is not great, although we are not in a recession. Currently, the incumbent President is very unpopular. Currently, the incumbent Party has nominated a man with no real connection to the sitting Administration. In most respects, this is similar to what occurred in 1920 (that year, however, there was a full blown recession). This election resulted in a huge loss for the incumbent party. So, is McCain doomed to a huge failure? I doubt it. First, McCain has a distinction from every other candidate nominated by the incumbent Party, including Cox – he is the maverick candidate, who has spent the past eight years painting himself, and having the media paint him, as the non-Bush Republican. Even when he has backed Bush on things that are unpopular – e.g., the War in Iraq – he has done so by publicly parting with Bush in some way – e.g., wanting more troops from the beginning. What has been done for so long cannot easily be undone. Meanwhile, in 1920, Gov. Cox embraced the unpopular President Wilson, and his unpopular policies, and largely because of it, he lost in a landslide. (BTW, in 1968, Humphrey tried to distance himself from President Johnson, and he almost won, even though he was intimately tied to the Administration.) Second, the Iraq War has not led to the amount of casualties that occurred during WWI. It isn’t even close. Third, as stated before, the country faced far more difficult economic concerns in 1920 than it does today. Fourth, other factors, such as candidate characteristics, have not even been considered here. For example, Barack Obama would be the first black President; Hillary Clinton would be the first female President. These too, will certainly matter (I suspect both will be a net negative for the Democrats).

Based on this very rough non-statistical study, I would guess the following things about the upcoming 2008 Presidential election:
1) The election will be close and competitive, as the polls currently demonstrate, and as has almost always been the case during the last half a century.
2) Controlling for other factors – like candidate characteristics – McCain is probably a slight underdog in the race. But, then again, this requires that we drop those other factors, which I think might be determinative this year.

Feel free to make your own additions or corrections to my less than statistical study. I am sure there is plenty more to say.

Note 1– I decided to go with the years between 1904 to 2004 because 1) many historians think this is the modern era of the Presidency, 2) there was a stable two party system during this entire time, 3) mass communication and media began and became prominent during this time, 4) it is a nice, even number, and 5) I just don’t have enough time or space to incorporate all the others.

Note 2 – This is not a statistical analysis paper. Although I have a very basic grounding in that subject, it is just that – basic. Plus, there simply aren’t enough instances of “third term elections” for anyone to develop a true statistical analysis of these Presidential elections.