What determines whether an incumbent President might win re-election?

The most important factor in determining the success of an incumbent President is whether the country’s economy is in good health. In 1992, the Democratic Party Presidential nominee, Bill Clinton, famously remarked ‘it’s the economy, stupid’, meaning that the thing which determined the outcome of all elections was the economy. Needless to say, Clinton’s focus on the economy was to the detriment of the incumbent President, George HW Bush who lost re-election. When the economy is thriving however, an incumbent President will take the credit, and their re-election chances are improved considerably. In 1980, the challenger, Ronald Reagan was able to ask people whether ‘they were better off than they were four years ago’, a question to which everyone knew the answer was no. Once again, a focus on the economy saw Reagan easily beat the incumbent President, Jimmy Carter. Four years later, now as the incumbent seeking re-election, Reagan was again able to play on the strength of the economy, this time proclaiming, ‘it’s morning again in America’. In truth, the America economy was not in good health and unemployment was at 7%, but Reagan focused on a message that the economy was improving. This resonated with many Americans, and he won a landslide victory in 1984. The economy is the most important factor that determines whether an incumbent President wins or loses. When people go to vote, they are usually thinking about their own circumstances and how they feel. Are they better off than 4 years ago? If the answer is yes, they will invariably vote to re-elect the President.

Though a big deal is made about the amount of money in Presidential elections, in truth it is of little importance to whether they win or lose. All Presidential candidates are able to amass huge war chests. For example, in 2020, Joe Biden was the first candidate in history to raise over $1billion. That his opponent, and the incumbent President, Donald Trump, only raised $774 million suggests that, given Trump’s defeat as the incumbent, money is hugely important. However, 2020 was an anomaly and it is much more likely that the incumbent will be able to raise considerably more money given the power and networks they have built up as President. Running a second time as provides the incumbent with an advantage in that they know which donors to target. Nonetheless, money is much less important in Presidential elections because the candidates do not need to get name recognition. At a lower level, candidates need to spend to buy advertising space to inform the electorate as to who they are and what they stand for. In 2020, all voters would have been familiar with both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. As such, money really has very little impact on whether an incumbent President wins re-election.

One factor that ensures an incumbent President will find re-election difficult is whether or not they are challenged for their party’s nomination. Such an event is unlikely, as most do not want to disrupt the chances of their own party at an election. However, two out of the three most recent incumbents who failed to achieve re-election have faced challengers from their own party. In 1980, Teddy Kennedy challenged the incumbent President Jimmy Carter and in 1992, President Bush was challenged by Pat Buchanan. Although both incumbent Presidents won against their challengers, it had the effect of splitting their party and bringing grievances against the President into the open. After all, if your own side doesn’t want to vote for you, why should undecided voters. Both men were severely wounded heading into the general election and duly lost. To a face a challenger from your own party is damaging but alone it will not lead to your failure to win re-election. In fact, challengers to incumbent Presidents emerge because of wider issues, most often, the economy. In both 1980 and 1992, the US economy was in a poor state, and it is much more likely to suggest that a poor economic record rather than the challenge to the incumbent led to their defeat. Afterall, the challenger had only emerged to highlight something that the general population were feeling.

A final reason why an incumbent president might face defeat in an election is events. In 2020, Donald Trump was seeking re-election but faced an uphill struggle once the Covid pandemic struck. Trump’s inability to handle the covid outbreak and his often-questionable behaviour highlighted to many Americans that his Presidency was one of chaos and confusion. The same was true in 1980, when the US President Jimmy Carter was unable to secure the release of US hostages in Iran. The crisis raged on for over a year and demonstrated Carter’s weakness as President. However, some Presidents can turn events to their advantage. In 2012, President Obama took time out of campaigning to help the victims of Hurricane Sandy which had struck the East coast of America. He received praise for his actions by the Republican governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, which helped to demonstrate that Obama was a nonpartisan President and excelled in his role as ‘comforter in chief’. Events are therefore of vital importance to an incumbent President. If you handle them correctly, they will be an asset to your campaign, handle them less then efficiently and it will be held against you during the subsequent election campaign. Nonetheless, the biggest event of all is the economy. If events, as they so often do, damage the economy, than the President will struggle to recover. This was clearly the case in 2020 and 1980 when both Covid and an oil shock saw both incumbent Presidents defeated.

What determines whether an incumbent President will be re-elected? It’s the economy stupid.