That is probably true too. But it's not what I said. I'm talking...

  1. 6,154 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 7
    That is probably true too. But it's not what I said. I'm talking about the massive electoral advantage of incumbency. Here are the Presidents I'm talking about - the last five incumbents who lost:

    https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0812/5-presidents-who-couldnt-secure-a-second-term.aspx

    Before them it's a bit messy. McKinley was assassinated so no second term. Grover Cleveland retired. But Benjamin Harrison was a defeated incumbent in 1892, so I'd correct my original statement of 150 years to 128 years. Hope that clarifies things.

    Being an incumbent President, sitting in the White House, is a massive advantage.

    Being an incumbent President in a crisis is an overwhelming advantage. It's like having a 100 metre race and starting Trump at the halfway mark. Even Trump can't lose. Surely.
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.