My Money’s on Obama Because...
By Randall Holcombe • Wednesday June 20, 2012 10:14 AM PDT • 6 Comments
... he’s the incumbent, and it’s really hard to beat an incumbent. I’m not normally a betting man, but shortly after President Obama was elected, in 2009, I bet someone $5 he’d be re-elected. Recently, I mentioned this bet to some graduate students and one of them wanted to make the same bet, so I put another $5 on Obama. I’ve got $10 riding on him now, so don’t ask me, because I don’t want to bet more. But I’m still thinking he’ll win the election in November, because he’s the incumbent.
Incumbents rarely lose their re-election bids. The last president who out-and-out lost his was Jimmy Carter, and the one before that was Herbert Hoover.
One might argue that George H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid, but that is a special and unusual case because Ross Perot ran as a third-party candidate and got 19% of the popular vote. Surely Perot took more votes from Bush than Clinton, so had the third-party candidate not been in the race, Bush would have been re-elected.
Then there is Gerald Ford, who lost to Carter. But he’s a special case too because, first, he was never elected, and second, he carried the legacy of Nixon, who he pardoned, as a burden.
Perhaps Lyndon Johnson should count too, because he could have run in 1968 and chose not to.
My argument that incumbents rarely lose is supported by not counting these “special cases,” but it does seem that the circumstances surrounding those incumbent presidents are missing here. So I’ll stick with my argument that they shouldn’t count.
The closest parallel to President Obama may be Jimmy Carter, the incumbent who actually lost. Like President Obama, he was burdened by a sluggish economy and other issues. And in many ways Romney seems like a stronger opponent in 2012 than Reagan did in 1980.
Romney’s problems exciting the Republican base may turn out to be an asset in November. Reagan was viewed more of an extreme candidate when he ran, and while that plays well to the base, a more middle-of-the-road candidate has a better chance of winning swing voters. Some Republicans may not like Romney, but they’re not going to vote for Obama. Meanwhile, the perception that Romney is more moderate could win him some Obama supporters.
So, it looks to me like Romney is poised to make a good showing in November, and has a good chance to win the election. But it is difficult to beat an incumbent, so my money is still on Obama.
Tags: Elections, Politics, Presidential Power 
Good post, however one factor you did not address with Obama is the economy. If there’s a downturn, as the latest M2 and Fed decisions point to, it will be very difficult for the incumbent to win. However, there is a good chance Bernanke will print more money soon, so betting for Obama may be pretty safe.
Matthew M. | Jun 20, 2012 | Reply
Judging by the real power in America,that is, the elites behind the scenes I doubt if it really matters who is President. The only real difference in the equation would have been if Ron Paul could have possibly reached the office of President. With that said,there is really no substantial difference between the policies of Mr.Obama and Mr. Romney. Only a matter of degree. And if you check history you’d find that there has been no substantial difference between the policies of Obama and his predecessor George Bush. So much for hope and change.
libertarian jerry | Jun 20, 2012 | Reply
You’re right on the money, Jerry. It matters not at all who is elected President, or further, to Congress. We no longer have a representative gov’t...haven’t for quite awhile. What we do have is a Fascist State.
Some think that because we vote, we do have a representative gov’t. The problem with that hypothesis is: once elected, 99% of the politicians represent mega, global corporations instead of We the People. And so it goes.
Scott Haley | Jun 25, 2012 | Reply
Sad thing is that come November, we will have a presidential Auction courtesy of the Supreme Court and its grossly conflicted rulings over corporate personhood. We all know companies aren’t people. The fiction that they are is maintained solely to promote corporate interests over those of the nation. And we also know that corporations have no loyalty whatsoever to country, nation, community or people – only profits for shareholders.
Phil | Jun 26, 2012 | Reply
Also remember that Jimmy Carter had survived an attack from his left in Ted Kennedy, weakening his support from the liberal base, and had the liberal Republican John Anderson running as an independent siphoning off part of the anti-Reagan vote. Both of these factors surely support the wisdom of your wagers (alas).
As for what difference it will make: it’s hard to get even a little excited about the Big Government Consultant Romney, but I can’t help feeling he will be just a little less disastrous than a fully liberated Obama no longer facing re-election. If nothing else, he’s less likely to nominate dogmatic leftists to the Supreme Court.
Jon | Jun 29, 2012 | Reply
It is true that corporations are not people. But people are corporations. When a group of people come together to pool resources to speak on an issue they still have the right to free speech. The Supreme Court got Citizens United correct.
Mike | Jul 12, 2012 | Reply