History's Tea Leaves Point to Bush's Reelection

Washington Post ^ | 11/18/03

[areafiftyone]

More than 2,500 casualties in Iraq. Some 2.5 million jobs lost. Nearly half a trillion dollars in federal budget deficits.

And George W. Bush could still be a solid bet to win reelection next year.

The day-to-day news about violence in Iraq and lingering economic worries at home obscure a fundamental reality about next year's election: Historically speaking, it should belong to President Bush. Since the presidential primary system became influential in 1952, an incumbent president has never lost a reelection bid if he did not face significant opposition in the primaries.

This is no nugget of political trivia. Political strategists and historians say an incumbent president's lack of primary opposition is a measure of how much support he has from his base of core supporters -- and therefore how much leeway he has in appealing to the political center, the key to general election victory. Of course, historical patterns do not always repeat themselves, but Bush's strength among his base means the Democrats will have extraordinary difficulty dislodging him from office.

The pattern has repeated itself perfectly. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton all ran for reelection without major challenges from within their own parties -- and all easily won second terms. Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush faced primary challenges while seeking reelection -- and all were ousted in the general election.

[RobertM]

I suppose if Clinton were still in office the people who lost their jobs would still be employed. The economy was on decline at least 3 months before Clinton left office. All the corruption with the stock market happened during the Clinton adminstration. To try to blame Bush is a joke.