Question. Has a political party ever not run the incumbent in a presidential election?

It's an idiotic discussion I'm having with someone about HRC and Obama, and wikileaks. They think for some reason that the wikileaks was released to discredit HRC because she wants to run against Obama.

I'm saying...

even if this was true...she wouldn't be able to because it's the incumbent president who runs, unless s/he doesn't want to, or his term expired. or death/illness.

What I'm wondering, has there ever been an exception for other than the reasons that I posted.

Franklin Pierce.

In any event, Hillary has said she has no desire to run for any elected office ever again.

as for HRC not wanting to run again, that honestly doesn't surprise me.

Really. The world does not revolve around her.

As for your opening question, the Democrats did not run LBJ in 1968, even though he was the incumbent and was still eligible to run.

the guy is a freak....:tinfoilhat:

so we're up to two...

pierce
LBJ

Bit of a difference.

March 31, 1968, when he went on National TV to announce his non-candidacy, the phone lines lit up as they only did during major events like plane crashes. I was a telephone operator, on duty that night, and I could not figure out why the phone lines had gone so crazy, until finally one of the customers told me that LBJ had said he was not running. About two weeks earlier we'd had a plane crash in my city, and this incredible usage was just like that.

LBJ decided not to run after being seriously challenged in the primaries. McCarthy came in second in NH with 42% of the vote. Bobby Kennedy then decided to challenge LBJ. Clearly, the party was not behind LBJ

A couple of weeks after RFK announced his candidacy, LBJ went on television and said he would not run.

I don't think of this as LBJ as choosing not to run but rather LBJ running and learning fast how unpopular he was.

McCarthy's strong showing in the New Hampshire primary. Something similar happened to Truman in 1952, which is why Truman did not run again.

LBJ may well have seen the writing on the wall, but it was not a matter of his party not running him again. The party, in terms of those entrenched party whatever you want to call them, who actually call a lot of the shots, would have been behind him. It's the average voters who weren't. There is seriously a difference.

There were also fewer caucuses and primaries back then, and a lot of the nomination process was in the traditional smoke-filled rooms, with the average voter totally left out.

Note, that McCarthy did not win in New Hampshire. LBJ still would have gotten the majority of whatever delegates would have come out of that primary.

when they would have been eligable. Johnson ran but dropped out after his narrow win in New Hampshire and Truman didn't run.

I've heard everything now. Clinton is in the Obama administration. Obama would have to decide not to run. And finally, is there really any policy differences between the two? That is crazy talk.

:rofl:

:rofl:

The most recent occasion was LBJ, who decided not to run for re-election, when he could have done so.

There were also some presidents in the mid-19th century who failed to receive their party's nomination

what I was wondering, was about an incumbent that was eligible but was forced not to, or someone of the same party ran against a sitting president.

and decide not to run early, like LBJ and Truman.

It's not the same, but there's a somewhat similar comparison in the 1912 election. Teddy Roosevelt was a former President and he ran against the incumbent, Howard Taft, for the Republican nomination. When Roosevelt lost at convention he ran as a third party candidate. So the incumbent President won nomination but a former President of the same party still ran against him.

I'm also reminded of US Grant's failed attempt to come back for a third term. However, he had been out of office for several years so he wasn't the incumbent President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Grant#Third_term_attempt

Which doesn't mean that the conspiracy theory about HRC, Obama and Wikileaks isn't ridiculous, like most conspiracy theories.

types could care leas about who is President.

If Obama is challenged it will not be by Hillary.
They have the same agenda. Obama has adopted DLC
Agenda.

Nixon.

mark

Cleveland is considered a decent president for for first term 1885-1889, but after losing in the 1888 election (for the March 4, 1889 to March 4, 1893 term) he ran again in 1892 and won (Cleveland's second term is considered a disaster especially how he handled the Railroad and other Labor strikes of that time period).

Thus by 1896 Cleveland had served two terms, but NOT consecutively and thus was still the Candidate of the "Gold Democrats" in 1896. When the "Gold Democrats" lost the convention to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party (the "Free Silver" Democrats), Cleveland was denied the opportunity to run again AND to pick the Candidate for 1896 (Even in elections when the incumbent President decided NOT to run, the Incumbent President had a huge say in who would be the candidate in the year the incumbent decided NOT to run).

You can almost make a comparison between Cleveland and present day. The "GOP Light" Democratic Party of 1898-1892 was replaced by the Progressive Democratic Party of 1896-1980). In its first 34 years (1896-1930) the Progressive wing only won two Presidential elections (1912 and 1916) but constantly pushed the nation to the left till the Great Depression forced the Country to accept US style Liberalism as the best alternative to a Communist take over (The GOP was marginalized till the election of Eisenhower in 1952, controlling the House just once, 1947-1949 in the years between 1930 and 1952). Even under Eisenhower the GOP was far to the left of what it was prior to 1940 (The GOP lost every state but two in 1936, after losing every state but four in 1932, thus by 1940 even the GOP realized it had to go to the left to survive) and what it is today. This was driven by how far the Democratic Party had gone left in 1896 (Through it took another 34 years for the Democratic Party to replace the GOP as the major party in the US).

Now, one of the reason for the raise of the Silver Democrats in 1896, had been the raise of the Free Silver party over the previous 20 years (Free Silver was tied in with inflation, which the country badly needed in the post reconstruction period, deflation had set in, with all of the problems with deflation including dropping income). With the Gold finds in Australia and South Africa after 1896 but before 1900, the need for inflation via minting more Silver coins and releasing them into circulation was no longer needed..

The reason the Free Silver movement died was that those gold finds did the same thing (Caused slight inflation) as the free minting of Silver would have done, stop the decrease in the value of goods in terms of Dollars (do to the shortage of gold AND the desire to keep the Dollar equal to $20 an ounce of gold). Thus by 1900 the Inflation that was needed had occurred (to to the increase in the amount of gold from the new mines in South Africa and Australia).

Like all progressive movements, the Free Silver had always been more then the Free Minting of Silver Dollars. This included Women's Rights, the rights of small farmers, and the Rights of Labor (Through not race relations given the Democratic party dependence on the South at that time period of History). Anti Imperialism was the call of the Democratic Party in 1900, for how can the US, as a democracy i.e. "rule by the people" rule another people? In 1904 the old line Gold Democrats won the nomination, and lost worse then the progressive candidate of 1896 and 1900 so he was nominated again in 1908, lost but set up the nation for the election of Wilson in 1912.

The Democratic Administration of 1913-1921 was NO where near what Cleveland had done in 1893-1897 (Through Wilson did segregate the Federal Government, and held the Palmer raids of 1919, you have to compare that to Cleveland who sent in troops against the Railroad workers in 1893 among other anti-labor actions by Cleveland and the final repeal of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which had been a dead letter since the Civil Rights Cases of the 1880s, where still on the books in the 1890s).

You can say a true Progressive was not elected to 1932, FDR refused to use troops against fellow Americans and pulled the US out of its Latin American Commitments, some of which dated from Wilson's Administration.

Just pointing out that when things where tough and the country needed a movement to the left, the Democratic Party did refuse to renominate its sitting President and picked someone to that President's left.

Just pointing out the last real time a Sitting President lost control of his Party's nomination process. In 1896, it came from OUTSIDE the Administration, reinforced by a third party to the Democratic Party's left. Hillary is IN Obama's administration and is of the same wing of the Democratic Party. No way will she challenge Obama. The Progressive wing started in 1894, two years before the Presidential elections. Thus something has to start NOW and from the House of Representatives. Local and State Democrats will have to rally around the idea of reform in the next two years (In 1894-1896 this was not only do to the need for reform, but fears that they would lose themselves to "Free Silver" Party unless they adopted most of the reforms being advocated by the "Free Silver" Party).

I do NOT see such an internal revolt among the Democrats for no one on the left is forming a new party to challenge the Democrats on the left. That is the single biggest reason for Cleveland defeat in the 1896 Convention and we do NOT have that at the present time.

I had to say this as a Progressive Democrat, unless Labor forms a Labor Party and people start to vote for it (Just like the Farmers formed the "Free Silver" party in the 1880s) the Democratic Party will stay where it is, dependent on the Left as its base, but catering to the right so to win the middle (Even as the Middle goes to the left, which is what happened between 1896-1932). In 1896 the Democratic party move to the Left secure the left for the Democratic Party (at the cost of winning national elections in Good Times). That move also made it certain that the Democratic Party would win everything if the country went into an economic tailspin and the GOP plans to solve that Tailspin failed (As it always did). Short tailspins (The 1920-1921 Recession for Example) the GOP could survive, but any long term economic tailspin (The 1927-1938 general decline in the US Economy for example) would destroy the "Trust" the American people had in the GOP and ready to embrace anyone with a plan to end the tailspin (Which is what the New Deal was in 1933 and 1938).

HRC should wait for 2016.