this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
408 points (85.9% liked)
Political Memes
5406 readers
4272 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's actually just not true. It's pretty interesting, but the main reason incumbents have such a high chance of re-election is because exactly this happened with most incumbents that had a low chance already: They got cut out by the party. So there has always been natural cherry-picking that only the "good" incumbents went on to actually be the nominee again (and therefore had a disproportionally high rate of winning).
Although I originally also thought otherwise, when looking at all the data, this was the rational & correct choice.
While I appreciate data, nothing I see at a glance is very supportive of an incumbent potus dropping out being a good idea. I dont have much time to dig into it right now, but of the two incumbents they highlight in the article, both were VPs that assumed the office after an assassination, and in both elections, the incumbent party lost the white house. Neither are particularly similar to the situation in 2024, nor do they suggest that pulling the incumbent would be a good idea.