Is there a specific reason losing candidates don’t offer themselves up for re-election (presidential). For example why didn’t John Kerry come back as a Democratic party hopeful in 2008? He came incredibly close to defeating Bush in 2004 and was IMO a good candidate (actually should have won).
On the same note John McCain was a pretty GOP good nominee in 2008, so why isn’t he trying again for 2012?
I’m not from the US so my apologies if it’s a law that I don’t know about.
It’s not that uncommon, but each situation is different. Nixon, of course lost a close race and later won it all. Others have lost and tried again but failed (Stevenson, for example). I think the stench of losing makes the party hope for someone stronger or different next time, and often a big time loss is the end of it.
I think in modern politics it makes sense that this doesn’t happen. The loser stigma and the whole “new car smell” factor.
It isn’t against the law to run again if you’ve lost, but, as Procrustus notes, a guy who’s lost once often has a hard time convincing voters that he’s the right guy the next time.
I also suspect that many of them decide, “you know, that was the longest two-to-four years of my life. I don’t want to do that again.”
And, in McCain’s case, he’s 75 years old now (Reagan, at age 69 in 1980, was the oldest man to win a first term as president), and his health (which was a point of some concern when he ran in 2008) surely isn’t any better now than it was then.
nm
Actually it wasn’t “incredibly close” as these things go. Kerry lost by about 3% of the overall vote (cite), but Bush got an absolute majority of the vote (unlike Clinton).
In Kerry’s case, it might simply be that he ran as “anybody but Bush” and lost. Since Bush wasn’t running in 2008, Kerry didn’t even have that to distinguish him.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree: once you lose, you have the stench of failure. And that stench is especially strong if you are thinking about running against the guy that beat you (e.g., McCain vs. Obama).
Interestingly, losing the *nomination *(like Romney did) seems to make you an automatic front-runner!
I thought Kerry did consider the possibility of a 2008 run but dropped it when it quickly became clear there was no support for his campaign.
In 2004, the candidates waited for Gore to announce he wasn’t running before they declared their campaigns, and there was a sense that he had the “right of first refusal” as far as the nomination went. Obviously he didn’t run then, but I think he would’ve had a good chance of winning the Dem nomination if he had tried. His win of the popular vote and the fact that many Dem party faithful felt he was “robbed” meant he wasn’t an obvious looser.
Similarily, Nixon only lost to Kennedy by some .1 %, and there were several contraversies regarding the legitimacy of the vote totals. This allowed him to come back and get the GOP nomination again 8 years later.
So in cases like Gore and Nixon, where the lose is very close and a decent chunk of the candidates party feel they were ‘robbed’, I think candidates do have some ability to avoid the “stink of losing” and try again if they want to. In cases like Kerry, McCain and Dole where the loss is pretty clear, there isn’t really any hope of getting the party to back them a second time.
There was Grover Cleveland, whom the voters booted from the WH and, four years later, put back in again. But that’s unusual.
Interestingly, in the history of the UK it is not that unusual for a given pol to serve discontinuous terms as PM. But, in their system, it’s all about the parties, and sometimes your party will lose an election and nevertheless keep you as its leader, which means the next time your party is back in power, you’re back in office.
Incumbent Presidents usually get re-elected. In the eighteen presidential elections since 1900 in which an incumbent was running, the incumbent won thirteen times and only lost five.
Here’s the majorities the re-elected incumbents won by:
McKinley: 6.12%
T Roosevelt: 18.83%
Wilson: 3.12%
Coolidge: 25.22%
F Roosevelt: 24.26%, 9.96%, 7.50%
Truman: 4.48%
Eisenhower: 15.40%
L Johnson: 22.58%
Nixon: 23.15%
Reagan: 18.21%
Clinton: 8.51%
Bush: 2.46%
Here’s what the losing incumbents lost by:
Taft: -18.6%
Hoover: -17.7%
Ford: -2.1%
Carter: -8.3%
GHW Bush: -5.5%
So overall, Kerry did pretty well against an incumbent. And it was certainly “incredibly close” by presidential election standards - in the twenty-eight elections since 1900, only four have been closer (1960, 1968, 1976, 2000)
As Simplicio noted, candidates usually only get a second chance when they came close to winning. Cleveland got more votes than Harrison in the 1888 election. Harrison won in the Electoral College.
If you are a Republican. Lately, Democrat insiders seem to scorn their runners-up, at least in Presidential races.
I think the question is, “If you couldn’t win the first time why do you think things will go differently this time?”
Kerry only lost if you believe that Ohio held an honest election.
Same in Canada: Macdonald, Meighen, King and Trudeau all came back into power after losing office (King twice). Of the four, all but Meighen were highly successful PMs.
The answer to that is, “Because no election year is quite like another.”