Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, January 13, 2008 2:35:32 PM
I am not usually one to analyze political trends by going back to statistical analysis of past elections, but I recently ran across a question where that seems to be the only viable solution.
A few days ago my wife and I were discussing the question of whether Obama was wise or not to run so early in his career. My thought was that, should he not win the nomination, he may have hurt himself, as I had the impression that those who ran for a nomination and lost very rarely were nominated again, unless they either became someone's VP or served in a cabinet post. My wife argued the opposite position, that the average voter placed a lot of weight on name recognition, so having run once Obama actually helped his future runs.
With nothing to do, I decided to analyze the last 20 elections. (The number is completely arbitrary, it just seemed a manageable number, and kept me from going all the way back to the 18th century.)
What I found was, sadly, a bit inconclusive, though it may still give Obama pause. (More on that later).
Of the 24 people who were nominated by the two major parties in elections since 1928, 5 had lost past nominations and had not subsequently served as either VP or in a cabinet post. They were:
1. Al Smith - Lost the nomination in 1923, nominated in 1928
2. Thomas Dewey - Lost the nomination in 1940, nominated to run in 1944 and 1948
3. George McGovern - Lost the nomination in 1968, nominated in 1972 ( Did serve under Kennedy in "Food for Peace" program, but that is not a cabinet post)
4. Ronald Reagan - Lost the nomination in 1976, nominated in 1980
5. Bob Dole - Withdrew after NH in 1980, ran again in 1988, nominated in 1996
There were five more who lost an earlier nomination, but were excluded form the first list as they either served as vice president or held a cabinet position:
1. Herbert Hoover - Ran in 1924, excluded as Secretary of Commerce under Harding and Coolidge
2. Lyndon Johnson- Ran for nomination in 1960, excluded as he was Vice President for Kennedy
3. Hubert Humphrey - Ran in 1952 and 1960, excluded as he was Vice President for Johnson
4. George HW Bush - Ran in 1980, excluded as he was Vice President for Reagan
5. Al Gore - Ran in 1988, excluded as he was Vice President under Clinton
The remaining 14 never ran in a primary for the presidential nomination before receiving the nomination.
Unfortunately, these lists are a bit less clear than I would hope. Yes, it does appear running for a nomination and losing is not a good thing for someone wishing to get a future nomination, but it does not appear to be the kiss of death that I suggested.
However, if one looks at the two lists above, there is one fact that should give Obama some concern.
Look at the list of those nominated after one successful run, who never served as VP or in the cabinet, versus the list of primary losers who DID serve as VP or in the cabinet. Do you notice something about their results in the general elections?
Of the first list, 4 in 5 lost, while in the second, 3 in 5 won (and Gore came as close as he could without actually winning).
While it appears Obama may not have ruined his chances for a future nomination, should he lose this run and not take a cabinet or VP slot, it also appears that he may not do so well in the general election should that future nomination actually come to pass.
Of course, this is all based on past results, and human behavior is far from mechanistic and predictable. No matter how much pollsters and pundits may enjoy looking backward to try to see the future, all our amateur Cassandras really have very little foundation. No matter what came before, humans can choose to behave in a completely new and unpredictable way.
All I can say is this:
If things stay the same, then Obama should probably take a cabinet post, or the VP slot, should he lose the nomination, otherwise he may have little luck getting either a future nomination, or, should he be nominated, winning the general election. But how likely things are to remain the same, I cannot predict.
My impression, for what it is worth, is that both parties tend to look down on those who have run in the primaries and lost, but the Democrats are more forgiving than the Republicans in that regard. On the other hand, perhaps the primary process is a bit better at predicting winners than the parties think, as those who lose the nomination also tend to lose the general elections, excepting the few who went on to gain greater experience, and a bit more exposure, by serving as VP or in the cabinet.
In short, I think Obama may have made a mistake by running now, but can recover by serving as VP to Hillary, should she win the general election. If Obama loses the nomination, and the democrats lose the presidency, I don't think he has much future in presidential politics.
But, as the numbers are not so clear, and the future is unpredictable, take my conclusion with a big grain of salt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: I know it is completely possible that I missed a primary run by someone on the list, or missed a primary attempt by one of the fourteen appearing on neither list. So, please, if I left anyone off either list, add a comment to let me know.