stupid political question

[minx]

has there ever been a case when the incumbent has not been his party's nominee to run for president? in theory, couldn't the republican party select someone other than Shrub to be their candidate for 2004?

[willstrickland]

Yes, at least one pres (LBJ I think?)has declined to run for another term.

[minx]

interesting.

 

but has it happened where the party as whole selected someone else, not that the candidate didn't run again.

[arlen]

That asshole Bush is ruining that asshole Pataki's political destiny.

[mothboy88]

I believe that Ed Kennedy actually ran against his own party's incumbent Carter in the primaries of 1980.

[Stonehead]

That would have to signal a disconnect between the goals of an incumbent candidate and his party's mandates. You can see the beginnings of a disconnect occurring between the Bush administration and the fiscally conservative faction of the Republican Party.

[mothboy88]

This [article link] seems to indicate that no same party challenge to an incumbent president has ever succeeded in getting the challeger elected. But they have definately succeeded in in helping defeat the incumbent. Or says a political scientist who has developed a 13 point rubric for predicting re-election chances.

 

From the article:

"Incumbency" is one of the 13 keys, and so is an "uncontested re-nomination" for an incumbent president. Several months ago on CNN, Greenfield asserted that with the possible exception of Harry Truman in 1948, any time in the last century when an incumbent president was seriously challenged within his own party, it was the beginning of the end for him.

 

I have heard conservative pundits comment that Bush announced his immigration policy immediatly following the deadline for registering to be a Republican challenger in the New Hampshire primary. They were pissed about the "its not amnesty" amnesty for illegal workers and felt he held his cards on the policy until he knew it was too late for a Republican challenger to organize his or herself.

[mothboy88]

That would have to signal a disconnect between the goals of an incumbent candidate and his party's mandates. You can see the beginnings of a disconnect occurring between the Bush administration and the fiscally conservative faction of the Republican Party.

 

I agree. I Bush is really straying from his conservative base with his spending and immigration/border policy. But its probably politically brilliant. He is free to pander to moderates now because who else are conservatives going to vote for? LaRouche?

[marylou]

I would agree that Bush is straying from his conservative base, but would contend that he is straying to the extreme right both on the domestic and foreign policy fronts.

[willstrickland]

Pierce was not nominated by his party (Democrat) for a second term, they nominated Buchanan instead.

 

Fillmore got the same treatment, but his was quite different because the party (Whig) essentially disentigrated and he refused to join the Republican party.

 

Here's a good article on the One-Term Presidential tradition

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/09/beatty.htm