October 26, 2004
WILL PUSHME-PULLYOUS GO FLIP-FLOP?:
Why Conflicted Voters Will Go for Bush: Americans Don't Elect Sitting Legislators President
(TERRY MICHAEL, Oct. 26, 2004, ABC News)
Forget the tracking polls and micro-analysis of a handful of targeted states. Our political history provides a pretty clear clue as to why conflicted voters will break for Bush in the closing days of the 2004 campaign.Americans almost never choose a sitting legislator as leader of the free world.
We've done it just three times: James A. Garfield in 1880, Warren G. Harding in 1920 and John F. Kennedy in 1960. They all died in office and combined served only five of 216 years of the presidency.
Three out of 43 is no historical fluke. But Washington insiders, both politicians and the press, never seem to get it.
Almost Guardianesque. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 26, 2004 4:15 PM
In fairness, General Garfield was elected primarily as a war hero (because the Dems ran General Winfield Hancock, who himself had strong bona fides). And unlike Kerry, he actually was one.
Posted by: AC at October 26, 2004 6:10 PMMaybe, maybe not.
It does seem as though a lot of people are beginning to see that the [Boy] Emperor has no clothes.
About bloody time.
Posted by: Jimmy at October 27, 2004 12:52 AMJimmy;
Yes, it's bizarre how the Democratic Party thought that they could get Senator Kerry elected without his record becoming public knowledge. I'm also glad that people are finally starting to realize that when Kerry is faced with supporting America or its enemies, he inevitably choses the latter.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at October 27, 2004 9:26 AMwhen was the last time a sitting president who was not challenged within his own party lost an election?
Posted by: JonofAtlanta at October 27, 2004 10:04 AM1932.
Posted by: ratbert at October 27, 2004 10:18 AMmy point exactly.
Posted by: JonofAtlanta at October 27, 2004 11:33 AM