Weak presidents and third party runs - idle speculation

I've been thinking about this, and wondering. If we look back at post-WWII history, we see a pattern that, whenever a weak (in terms of popularity) president is up for re-election, there's a third party candidate who garners significant attention:

1992: prez- Bush the Elder; 3rd partier - Ross Perot
1980: prez - Carter; 3rd partier - John Anderson
1948: prez - Truman; 3rd partiers - Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace

(One could potentially add 1996 and the Perot re-run to this list, though I wouldn't characterize Clinton going into that election as nearly as weak as the three above.) Now, maybe 3 (or 4) instances do not a pattern make but, given that Obama's position right now resembles that of the 3 presidents above, it does make me wonder if we're likely to see a high-profile 3rd-party entrant next year. Thoughts?

If we didn't have it, I think you'd see somebody personally wealthy like Bloomberg running as a third party candidate.

And it worries me too.

I actually just forgot about Wallace. It is looking like a pattern.

That was a doozy. It's also about the right model for a lefty 3rd Party campaign: dumb, disorganized, and doomed. That Truman was re-elected is only gravy at that point. You forgot to mention that the 'weak" President was re-elected that year, despite the (or perhaps because of) the 3rd party campaign by disgruntled leftists.

:rofl:

Just making an observation about election tendencies. There seemed like enough straight-up political junkies here that some might find it interesting.

Personally, I think the likeliest 3rd-party scenario is a tea party splinter if Romney is nominated and doesn't pick a teabagger running mate. But I can't imagine that actually happening. Still, the correlation between weak presidents up for re-election and significant 3rd-party runs does seem like a compelling one, even if this year breaks the cycle.

I don't consider Obama a weak President, so I don't see how the fact that there's no third party candidacy anywhere near the horizon would break the pattern. Indeed, by your own description of the pattern, you'd have to abandon your 'weak President' premise, if you were honest, anyway.

Weak in terms of popularity. Gallup just clocked him at 39%, and he's been largely under 50% for the last year.

Like I said, just making an observation as a student of presidential electoral politics; not trying to stir up trouble.

He could be in the low 30's by next year if the economy worsens.
You're right, if he gets much weaker, he'll be in trouble of a challenge. Depending upon how the GOP primary comes out, you could see a Tea Bagger challenger.

Indeed.

"Weak" refers to his relative popularity going into the re-election campaign. It's not a value judgment, it's a recognition of a political reality.

Ask Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush how their 40% overall approval ratings worked out for them. No president except Truman has ever won re-election with an approval rating that low. I sure hope this one does, but that's a fact, and that's what I mean by "weak."

Some sort of populist nutcase might just be lurking around the corner. I can't see that really hurting Obama unless turnout is bad.

That would seriously fuck any chance republicans have of winning in 2012.