politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Maybe in 08. But in 2012, like this year, there were only a few challengers, and they were actually less successful. Mainly a former Tennessee nominee for the 3rd congressional district. He got a total of 117,033 votes. An author named Darcy Richardson who got 109,764 votes. And convicted felon Keith Russel Judd, who got 73,138 votes, which was mainly from him winning 41% of the West Virginia vote, with such a low number. The uncommitted/no preference option got 426,336 votes. There were a couple other candidates but it wasn't really a contest, no debates were held and Obama got 8,044,659 votes overall. Which is less than Biden did this year with 14,465,519 votes. There were more successful candidates this year than in 2012, Dean Philips got 529,486 votes, and of course uncommitted got 706,591. Overall, Obama got 90.1% of the vote in 2012 and Biden got 87.1% this year.
Incumbents don't usually have challengers. And almost never hold debates like people wanted this year. While 2012 had more challengers, none were serious, just like this year. His 08 primary wins were more serious, of course, but I don't think that's an apt comparison.
Sources: 2012, 2024
The incumbents not being challenged is relatively recent though. It's been that way my entire life, but not my parents
I don't know how old you are, but the last time there was a serious challenge to an incumbent was 1976 with Gerald Ford and Reagan. Although, in 1980, Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy, and that was more serious as it was the last incumbent who lost a primary in any state until this year in American Samoa. There were some other challengers in other incumbent primaries, but none were as serious as 76 and 80. 1972, there basically weren't any, Nixon had an iron grip on the party. Of course, in 1968, LBJ chose not to seek reelection, so it isn't applicable. 1964, there wasn't a primary in every state, but the challenger was a George Wallace, and it was more successful, but only because it was George Wallace and the party switch was just starting. 1956 had one real challenger, but Eisenhower won 85.9% of the vote overall, so it wasn't serious. 1952 was probably the most robust of the older elections, Truman lost the New Hampshire primary and decided not to run for a "third" term. 1948 had a more serious challenge, but it wasn't in every state, and Truman overall got 64.7% of the vote. 1944 again didn't have that serious of a challenge with FDR getting 79.3% of the vote. 1940 had a bit more serious of challengers, but FDR still got 71.93% of the vote. 1936 barely had anything, and FDR, similar to Obama in 2012, got 92.9% of the vote. 1932 had a much more robust challenge with Hoover since it was the great depression but that was a completely different situation. And Hoover actually got 36% of the vote. But he had control of the party, and the convention went with him.
More modern wise, 1984 was basically nothing. 1992 was a bit more serious, but Bush overall got 72.8% of the vote, and Buchanan got 23%, but Bush didn't lose a race. 1996 saw Clinton get 89% of the vote, he technically lost two races. One in north Dakota, but it was a different race cause that person won with 651 votes total. The second was to uncommitted in Michigan. And not every state held a primary. And finally, in 2004, Bush got 98.1% of the vote, so again, it was not a real challenge.
Again, I don't know how old you are, but I think all this shows that it's super rare for an incumbent to have any robust challenge in modern history. With mainly 76 and 80 being the main ones. Even the older ones where the incumbent lost races weren't usually that robust. And debates were even rarer with only really happening in 76. So overall, this year was pretty standard for incumbent challengers.
Sources: 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1992, 1996, 2004
Sidenote here at the end. I did this all on mobile, and it took way too long, but I didn't want to just give up.
I'm unsure why I was down voted when your response backed me up. 44 years ago is pretty recent
I wouldn't be surprised if it was just linkerbaan and his ilk. You don't deserve to be downvoted. My comment backed you up, but I thought of it more as larger context for modern purposes. 1 or 2 significant challenges 44 years ago, while recent, still shows how unusual it is. We've had a decent amount of incumbents since then not be challenged and we had a decent amount before then not really be challenged. It wasn't a consistent thing, ya know.
My instance doesn't let me see who down voted. I used to be on kbin.social and it used to be nice to see both. Knowing a nazi sympathizer is down voting you is a badge of honor... anyways, I appreciate you putting out the data.
Wait, there's an instance that can show you who downvotes you? I didn't know that existed. That's pretty damn cool.
I talk about political history from 24 years ago (Gore) and people ask "why are you going back so far?" So to most people 44 years is ancient history.