Seems to me there’s got to be a certain percentage of voters who subscribe to the philosophy of “Never change horses in mid-stream.” If there’s an incumbent running, they’re going to vote for him.
It’s not a totally imbecilic way to think, after all: especially with a President, you just might think that one four-year term just isn’t long enough to get his job done, so give him the full eight years and then evaluate the neophyte candidates in the next election on their merits.
For starters, is there anyone here who has voted for the incumbent in every Presidential election that there’s been an incumbent running in? If so, tell us why?
My grandfather’s strategy was to vote against the incumbent unless said incumbent was doing a VERY good job. He strongly opposed career office-holders.
I won’t always vote for the incumbant but if two people have similar views on key issues I’ll certainly take it into consideration. I figure it takes a while for a new president to get settled in, get used to the routine, and try to make all the changes he wants. Then halfway through his term he starts campaigning for reelection. He also balances everything he does against how it will help or hurt his chances of a second term. You don’t even get a full three good years out of a president in his first term.
I think the terms should be longer with no chance of reelection.