Evaluate the extent to which incumbency gives presidential candidates an advantage in US election?

Question 1

intro

Answer 1

In the last 40 years, there have been seven elections where an incumbent president is seeking re-election - four have won and three have lost. There are some clear theoretical advantages for incumbents over challengers. However, we know that incumbents are not guaranteed victory. So the extent of incumbent advantage is considerable but not overwhelming

Question 2

para 1 theme

Answer 2

It is almost always the case in presidential elections that incumbents do not face a serious primary challenge. That bring clear advantages (e.g Obama vs Romney, 2012). Romney was attacked by members of his own party such as Ron Paul. Romney would spend a total of $449,507,659 in the 2012 election, much of this being used in the primary campaign. By the time it came to the presidential campaign, Obama had spent little time or money campaigning due to him not having a primary campaign, whilst Romney had spend a lot of time and money

Question 3

para 2 theme

Answer 3

• Occasionally in presidential elections it is possible that the incumbent could face a primary challenge. In 1980, President Carter was challenged by the talented Ted Kennedy, outlining the internal democratic party divisions. George W Bush faced a strong primary challenge from Pat Buchanan, with the expense and the divisive nature of the battle contributing to his defeat to Clinton
  Even if the incumbent does not face a primary challenge, there may still be problems with lack of party unity

Question 4

para 3 theme

Answer 4

Because it is so rare for incumbents to face a primary contest, this is, on balance, a clear advantage. But there is no guarantee that incumbents will not face a primary challenge

Question 5

para 1 - lack of primary challenge for the majority of incumbents

Answer 5

It is almost always the case in presidential elections that incumbents do not face a serious primary challenge. That bring clear advantages (e.g Obama vs Romney, 2012). Romney was attacked by members of his own party such as Ron Paul. Romney would spend a total of $449,507,659 in the 2012 election, much of this being used in the primary campaign. By the time it came to the presidential campaign, Obama had spent little time or money campaigning due to him not having a primary campaign, whilst Romney had spend a lot of time and money

Question 6

para 1 - however

Answer 6

• Occasionally in presidential elections it is possible that the incumbent could face a primary challenge. In 1980, President Carter was challenged by the talented Ted Kennedy, outlining the internal democratic party divisions. George W Bush faced a strong primary challenge from Pat Buchanan, with the expense and the divisive nature of the battle contributing to his defeat to Clinton
  Even if the incumbent does not face a primary challenge, there may still be problems with lack of party unity

Question 7

para 1 - rebuttal

Answer 7

• Because it is so rare for incumbents to face a primary contest, this is, on balance, a clear advantage. But there is no guarantee that incumbents will not face a primary challenge

Question 8

para 2 - the nature of the campaign

Answer 8

• Incumbents usually have a financial advantage and invariably out-spend their challengers. There are also advantages in terms of staffing resources. E.g. Obama raised significantly more money than his opponent Mitt Romney. Given the importance of campaign finance, with the emergence of Super PACs only heightening this.
  Incumbents also often have an advantage in terms of media attention and name recognition. For example, News outlet MSNBC aired 79 minutes of Obama’s campaign in 2012, compared to Romney’s 44 minutes. Being able to sell your campaign and publicise your candidacy can help presidential candidate to convince the electorate to vote for them

Question 9

para 2 - however

Answer 9

• It is still possible for challengers to raise considerable sums. Super PACs are a useful source of independent spending. And money doesn’t guarantee victory
  
  • Airtime is not guaranteed. It has become increasingly partisan meaning it is not guaranteed that incumbents will receive more air time. In one weekend in 2012, the conservative Fox News aired Obama for 27 minutes and Romney for 168 minutes
  • Charismatic challengers can limit that advantage. They can often have media attention taken away from them. Both Carter and Bush Senior lost large amounts of media time to the charismatic Reagan and Clinton respectively. With the increase in the length of campaigns since 1968, these challengers have become increasingly able to push their campaign and gain more name recognition.
    Candidate charisma has further become an advantage with the emergence of the TV debates. In 1980, most commentators agreed that the charismatic Reagan got the better of Carter in the debates, further boosting the Republicans campaign

Question 10

para 2 - rebuttal

Answer 10

• This is another considerable advantage that incumbents enjoy over their challengers in most elections, although in practice it depends on circumstances.
  
  • The importance of TV debates has been overstated. This was shown particularly in 2020, where Trump and Biden used the debates to hurl insults at each other rather than campaign effectively, with Biden saying his infamous line of “oh wont you shut up man”.
    The likelihood the challenger will outraise the incumbent is very slim. Apart from Biden and Trump in 2020 and Clinton and Bush in 1992, no challenger has raised more than the incumbent in the last 40 years

Question 11

para 3 - experience of office

Answer 11

• As President, you can introduce policies that you believe go down well with voters, with them being able to target battleground states. In 2012, Obama was able to take credit for popular foreign policy actions, such as the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and the killing of Osama Bin Laden in 2011. In contrast, his opponent Mitt Romney had no such achievements or experiences from which he could take credit for. Similar foreign policy achievements are what secured George W Bush a second term in 2004, giving him a mandate to continue his war on terror.
  President can also cite economic successes, such as Bill Clinton in 1996, who was able to boast a substantial improvement in the economy, which had previously been in downturn under George HW Bush’s presidency

Question 12

para 3 - however

Answer 12

The experience of office could be a limiting factor. It is certainly easier to be the challenger when it comes to the TV debates, as you can focus on your promises for the future rather than having to defend your specific agenda in office. For example, George HW Bush struggled to defend his time in office in 1992, as the economy was doing poorly and he had notoriously had to compromise on his famous 1988 campaign promise; “read my lips, no new taxes”. Moreover, Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump had similar issues in their campaign. Carter had low approval ratings at the time, due to an unhealthy economy whilst Donald Trump had to answer for the government’s poor handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw an economic downturn and a rise in unemployment by 10%

Question 13

para 3 - rebuttal

Answer 13

COVID was an extraordinary circumstance and prior to that, Trump had presided over an annual average growth of 2.5%. Furthermore, the issues faced by Bush and Carter were heightened by the successful campaign of their opponents, Clinton and Reagan respectively. Had they been opposed by a much less charismatic opponent then these issues may have been much less consequential