Midterm Elections 2018

[Acymetric]

Has an incumbent President ever been primaried?

Yes. I feel reasonably confident that there has been some challenger in almost every primary for an incumbent (but not necessarily a serious/legitimate one). In pretty much all cases where there was a serious challenge to the incumbent (which is less common, but has certaionly happened) that incumbent lost.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Has an incumbent President ever been primaried?

Yes. I feel reasonably confident that there has been some challenger in almost every primary for an incumbent (but not necessarily a serious/legitimate one). In pretty much all cases where there was a serious challenge to the incumbent (which is less common, but has certaionly happened) that incumbent lost.

Ted Kennedy actually won a few states in the '80 election primaries, but never got close enough to unseat President Carter.
Edit...these are the states Kennedy won.
AZ, MA, CT, NY, PA, ND
DC, CA, NJ, NM, RI, SD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democr...rimaries,_1980

[Acymetric]

Ted Kennedy actually won a few states in the '80 election primaries, but never got close enough to unseat President Carter.
Edit...these are the states Kennedy won.
AZ, MA, CT, NY, PA, ND
DC, CA, NJ, NM, RI, SD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democr...rimaries,_1980

Notably, Carter then lost in the general. Difficult to say whether it is the damage done from during a contentious primary that torpedoes the sitting candidate or if the serious primary is a sign that the sitting candidate is likely to struggle in the general election regardless. I would probably lean more towards the latter, I suppose.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Notably, Carter then lost in the general.

That was inevitable, lol. I don't think Kennedy would have done any better, but it sure would have been interesting.

[OldPhiKap]

Has an incumbent President ever been primaried?

Ford (by Reagan) in 1976
Carter (by Ted Kennedy) in 1980

[PackMan97]

Has an incumbent President ever been primaried?

I apologize if my "primaried" wasn't well defined. That is, lost in the primary, not seen a significant challenge.

To answer my own question, it has only happened once to an ELECTED president.

Franklin Pierce (#14 1853-1857) a northern democrat who saw the abolitionist movement as a threat to the union (and he was right). He lost the support of northern Democrats at the convention for his Pro-slavery actions and eventually lost the '56 convention to James Buchanan who went on to win the general election and become President #15.

A few Presidents who assumed the Presidency have been primaried.

John Tyler, Whig - Assumed the Presidency after the death of William Henry Harrison. In 1844 the Whig party nominated Henry Clay.

Millard Fillmore, Whig - Assumed the Presidency after the death of Zachary Taylor. In 1852 the Whig party nominated Winfield Scott instead.

Andrew Johnson, Democrat - Assumed Presidency after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Was impeached and nearly convicted by a Republican Senate. Democratic nomination in 1868 when to Horatio Seymour.

Chester Arthur, Republican - Assumed Presidency after assassination of James Garfield. In 1884 the GOP nominated James Blaine instead.

...and there you have it.

[luvdahops]

Agreed. And a great fundraiser.



There is a generation of House Democrats who likely disagree.

And for the future of the party -- there is a reason that most of the names thrown around as Presidential candidates in 2016 and 2020 were/are in their seventies. The lack of a developed bench of younger leaders with experience and exposure.


I think the smarter political decision for the Democrats would be for Pelosi to stand aside, as opposed to forcing folks who promised not to vote for her to either flip-flop on their first vote or else vote a protest. Depending on the size of the majority, just voting "present" may not be a viable option. I do not expect that she will stand down, however.

Hasn't Pelosi floated the idea of serving as only a bridge or transitional speaker, while the party decides on a new, younger face to build around longer term?

[OldPhiKap]

I apologize if my "primaried" wasn't well defined. That is, lost in the primary, not seen a significant challenge.

To answer my own question, it has only happened once to an ELECTED president.

Franklin Pierce (#14 1853-1857) a northern democrat who saw the abolitionist movement as a threat to the union (and he was right). He lost the support of northern Democrats at the convention for his Pro-slavery actions and eventually lost the '56 convention to James Buchanan who went on to win the general election and become President #15.

A few Presidents who assumed the Presidency have been primaried.

John Tyler, Whig - Assumed the Presidency after the death of William Henry Harrison. In 1844 the Whig party nominated Henry Clay.

Millard Fillmore, Whig - Assumed the Presidency after the death of Zachary Taylor. In 1852 the Whig party nominated Winfield Scott instead.

Andrew Johnson, Democrat - Assumed Presidency after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Was impeached and nearly convicted by a Republican Senate. Democratic nomination in 1868 when to Horatio Seymour.

Chester Arthur, Republican - Assumed Presidency after assassination of James Garfield. In 1884 the GOP nominated James Blaine instead.

...and there you have it.

Great info.

Primaries back then were not national campaigns, they were back room deals between party bosses.

I recommend Destiny of the Republic about Garfield for a great description of the convoluted process. And it is a fantastically interesting and well-written story.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I apologize if my "primaried" wasn't well defined. That is, lost in the primary, not seen a significant challenge.

To answer my own question, it has only happened once to an ELECTED president.

Franklin Pierce (#14 1853-1857) a northern democrat who saw the abolitionist movement as a threat to the union (and he was right). He lost the support of northern Democrats at the convention for his Pro-slavery actions and eventually lost the '56 convention to James Buchanan who went on to win the general election and become President #15.

A few Presidents who assumed the Presidency have been primaried.

John Tyler, Whig - Assumed the Presidency after the death of William Henry Harrison. In 1844 the Whig party nominated Henry Clay.

Millard Fillmore, Whig - Assumed the Presidency after the death of Zachary Taylor. In 1852 the Whig party nominated Winfield Scott instead.

Andrew Johnson, Democrat - Assumed Presidency after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Was impeached and nearly convicted by a Republican Senate. Democratic nomination in 1868 when to Horatio Seymour.

Chester Arthur, Republican - Assumed Presidency after assassination of James Garfield. In 1884 the GOP nominated James Blaine instead.

...and there you have it.

I love a good history lesson!

[rasputin]

The speaker of the house (IMO) is a target for the opposition, and is used rightly or wrongly as to what is wrong with an individual candidate's position. The Pelosi memes are going to be in full force by the end of this week, I have no doubt.
There was a reason that more than a few candidates running for seats used "I will not vote for Pelosi" as a campaign promise.

CB&B is correct about this; whether the Democrats like it or not, Pelosi has become a nationwide lightning rod. Here in the flyover zone (Missouri) we saw zillions of ads trying to tar some local Democrat with the Nancy Pelosi brush.

So the rub is, yes, Pelosi has been effective in her roles as Speaker and minority leader, as far as marshalling the troops in the House, but if having her as Speaker is making it more difficult to elect Democrats in Congress, it's a losing proposition in the long run.

[Troublemaker]

I'm betting we see more than 20 declared candidates on the Dem side, maybe closer to 25. Don't forget that in addition to the politicians we will likely see Tom Steyer, Michael Avenatti, and are least one or two CEO/entrepreneur types who want a shot at Trump.

Quite possible. One thing I'll back off on, though, is my prior prediction of several Hollywood celebrities entering the fray. I think #MeToo is the great limiter there. If anyone followed the Harvey Weinstein story, his behavior was basically an open secret in Hollywood. Once you eliminate celebrities that (a) have committed sexual assault before or (b) knew about Weinstein but did nothing, I think you eliminate almost everyone, sadly.

I think a much more interesting question is how many Republican candidates will there be?

It won't matter. Even if Flake or whoever decides to run, they will be completely crushed by Trump. That much is clear from all the types of polls we talk about on this thread. In 2016, Trump won not only the presidency but the battle for the Republican Party, which is not meaningfully conservative anymore (at least at the national level).

Yeah, Ds should root for Kasich or Romney or someone of that ilk to try a hopeless 3rd-party bid for the Presidency rather than a hopeless primary bid.

[Bostondevil]

Has an incumbent President ever been primaried?

Which is why the question is interesting. ;-)

[PackMan97]

Yeah, Ds should root for Kasich or Romney or someone of that ilk to try a hopeless 3rd-party bid for the Presidency rather than a hopeless primary bid.

I really thought that 2016 was the year for a moderate independent to show up once it was Clinton and Trump. Given the negatives on both candidates, I thought it was the year to try.

[Bostondevil]

It won't matter. Even if Flake or whoever decides to run, they will be completely crushed by Trump. That much is clear from all the types of polls we talk about on this thread. In 2016, Trump won not only the presidency but the battle for the Republican Party, which is not meaningfully conservative anymore (at least at the national level).

I don't know about your state, but in Massachusetts, "unenrolled" (not affiliated with a party) voters can vote in any primary they like. In other words, it wouldn't be the Republican voters in Massachusetts he'd have to worry about. In MA, there are 5 times as many unenrolled voters as there are Republican voters. Trump would not win the Massachusetts primary if there were an alternative candidate. (Unenrolled voters outnumber Democrats too, but not by as much, 1.5+ million Dems to 2.5+ million Unenrolled.)

[CameronBornAndBred]

I didn't follow many polls this year, since they were so wrong in 2016. How did they do this year?
Specifically speaking of the big races, such as Florida, Georgia, Arizona. Did the outcomes reflect the predictions?

[gus]

There is a generation of House Democrats who likely disagree.

No doubt. But Pelosi is needed for the next session. It makes absolutely no sense to turn over the leadership to someone without her ability and experience. The democrats need to accomplish many things that a lesser speaker will fail at. This is a completely separate conversation about who will oppose Trump in 2020. Quick- without googling, name the last president who was a speaker of the house. (Hint: There is only one. His mullet was glorious.)

[chris13]

Which is why the question is interesting. ;-)

Ronald Reagan challenged incumbent Republican Jerry Ford in 1976.
Ted Kennedy challenged incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1980.

I can't think of any since.

[OldPhiKap]

No doubt. But Pelosi is needed for the next session. It makes absolutely no sense to turn over the leadership to someone without her ability and experience. The democrats need to accomplish many things that a lesser speaker will fail at.

You raise valid considerations. I think that much of my response to this would likely drift over the PPB wall and into the neighbor's forbidden lawn. I guess I can say though that your argument presumes that anyone other than Pelosi would be "a lesser speaker." Not sure how the Democrats ever find that out or not if no one else ever gets a chance.

My guess is that there is perhaps more than one capable leader in the caucus.


But I don't have a vested interest in the decision as an independent, so it's really more of an academic issue for me.

[chris13]

CB&B is correct about this; whether the Democrats like it or not, Pelosi has become a nationwide lightning rod. Here in the flyover zone (Missouri) we saw zillions of ads trying to tar some local Democrat with the Nancy Pelosi brush.

So the rub is, yes, Pelosi has been effective in her roles as Speaker and minority leader, as far as marshalling the troops in the House, but if having her as Speaker is making it more difficult to elect Democrats in Congress, it's a losing proposition in the long run.

I think the counterpoint to that would be that we just had an election where Pelosi returning as speaker was used as a cudgel against the Democrats, and it was so effective they lost minus 34 seats (assuming NY Times forecast holds up).

I think one advantage the non-Presidential party has is that they essentially have no leader in midterms. In other words, people are more motivated about their feelings about the President (in this case an unpopular Trump) than the fear of Nancy Pelosi returning as speaker, just as in 2010, people were motivated to vote against Dems because Obama was unpopular.

[rasputin]

I think the counterpoint to that would be that we just had an election where Pelosi returning as speaker was used as a cudgel against the Democrats, and it was so effective they lost minus 34 seats (assuming NY Times forecast holds up).

I think one advantage the non-Presidential party has is that they essentially have no leader in midterms. In other words, people are more motivated about their feelings about the President (in this case an unpopular Trump) than the fear of Nancy Pelosi returning as speaker, just as in 2010, people were motivated to vote against Dems because Obama was unpopular.

Pelosi wasn't just used as a cudgel against Democrats in the House races. She was used (ad nauseam) in ads against Claire McCaskell in the Senate race here.