If President Obama lost to Romney in November, do you think there would be any possibility down the road for him to pull a Grover Cleveland and win the presidency again? He is a relatively young man and still the most charismatic Democrat at a national level. Could he plausibly win again down the road or would the narratives of him as a defeated one-termer and party pressures make it too much of a challenge?That's a fun question, isn't it?
Let's see. The defeated (or early retirement) presidents since the two-term limit were Johnson, Ford, and Carter. What do they have in common? Johnson resigned in the face of a nomination battle; Ford and Carter barely managed to get themselves renominated. So none of them is really a good comp for a defeated Barack Obama. Going back before the 22nd amendment...Truman, too, was hardly a lock for the nomination had he chosen to run in 1952.
I don't really know anything about Hoover's renomination in 1932, but of course his defeat in November was a wipeout. Coolidge presumably wanted to stay retired. Wilson couldn't have had the nomination in 1920 even if he wanted it (which he probably did). Nor could Taft, I assume, if he had tried in 1916.
That gets us back to the closest thing to Cleveland's comeback, the Teddy Roosevelt effort in 1912. And before that...well, I guess before that is Cleveland himself.
So there's really nothing at all similar. The defeated or retired presidents in the 20th century either had serious opposition within their party or lost a blowout or really wanted to be retired. There's no way of knowing whether Obama would want a comeback, but assuming the presidential race remains close, he would pass the other two tests.
On the other hand. Michael Dukakis didn't do that badly, but I think Democrats were pretty united against inviting him back. The same is probably true, although not quite as definitely, about John Kerry and Al Gore; it's hard to tell how much of their choice not to run again was personal and how much was a calculation of the politics. Hubert Humphrey came close, but didn't quite win the 1968 nomination. There's also, for whatever it's worth, the Democrats' habit of nominating first-time candidates (in every recent open nomination except for VP Gore and former VP Mondale, and Mondale hardly ran in 1976). So there's at least a bit of evidence that the post-1968 Democratic Party doesn't like retreads.
Put it all together, and the obvious answer is: who knows? I wouldn't entirely rule it out, though. Presumably the conditions that would make it most likely would be a very close loss in November, perhaps even one with some controversy involved, followed by a further economic downturn; it's hard to see Obama as a strong 2016 candidate if the economy does well for President Romney (of course, it's hard to see any Democrat winning in that case).
I suppose it's also worth mentioning that he wouldn't necessarily have to do it in 2016, when he'll be 54. In 2028, he'll just be a little bit older than Mitt Romney is now. But presumably his best chance would be losing a close election this fall, then Romney winds up an unpopular president, and then running next time.
Posts
As I recall, Wilson attempted to have his name floated at the 1920 convention, without success.
ReplyDeleteUm...George H. Bush?
ReplyDeleteOf course, Bush had problems with his own party, and was noticeably older than Obama (and did not have the personal animosity toward Clinton that...well...everyone has for Romney), so I think he's still a poor analogy for Obama 2016.
"Michael Dukakis didn't do that badly, but I think Democrats were pretty united against inviting him back."
Well, the popular vote wasn't really worse than Obama-McCain, but it was a 400 point electoral college defeat. I think most Dems should be forgiven for think that was an absolute wipe out.
"The same is probably true, although not quite as definitely, about John Kerry and Al Gore; it's hard to tell how much of their choice not to run again was personal and how much was a calculation of the politics."
I dunno about that; this is only anecdotal evidence, but in both '04 and '08, I knew a significant number of Dem activists who were chomping at the bit for Gore to run again. As for Kerry, would things have been different if he hadn't had the "stuck in Iraq" gaffe right as people were putting things in place for '08 (not that such a gaffe actually matters, but I think it lingered in Kerry's mind).
That being said, I still doubt Obama '16. 1) I think he'll win this year; 2) If I'm wrong, I doubt he'll be interested in one more trip through the meat grinder; 3) I have this hard-to-articulate sense that someone who necessarily will only serve for four years can command the loyalty of enough of the party; he's almost just a placeholder President, and after his own election, I'm not sure there's many young Dems with a national future who feel like they need to wait their turn.
I think you're right to mention the animosity a lot of people have for Romney--not just animosity but contempt, at least among a lot of Democratic activists, who have spent a lot of time painting an image of Romney as an absolute joke. (The merits or lack of merits of that image are besides the point.)
DeleteMy sense is that, if Obama were to lose to Romney, there'd be a very strong sense that Obama lost the election more than Romney won it--again, at least among Democratic activists. That might make it harder for him to build confidence for a rematch. (And perhaps this is just something about activists in general, or Democratic activists in general--I really think a lot of Dems think Kerry "should have" beaten Bush, and lost because he was such a loser, rather than thinking that Bush was a good candidate or that it was an objectively difficult task.)
Now, maybe you're right that Kerry might have managed to do better if not for that gaffe--but it's also possible that the gaffe lingered in the minds of Kerry and others precisely because of this presumption that he was a bad politician who often said things like "for it before I was against it".
My own wish, as I said on DKE today (where someone oddly floated the same idea) is that, if Obama loses, he goes back and wins Bobby Rush's House seat this time, pulling a John Quincy Adams--entirely because it'd be a better trivia answer someday.
ReplyDelete"Hubert Humphrey came close, but didn't quite win the 1968 nomination."
ReplyDeleteDid I miss something here?
That I meant to say 1972?
DeleteJonathan got it right:
ReplyDelete"Presumably the conditions that would make it most likely would be a very close loss in November, perhaps even one with some controversy involved, followed by a further economic downturn"
Getting robbed and the economy further tanking would set Obama up quite well. He is an awfully good politician, and knows how to grab an opportunity.
Only reason why he's President now, no?
DeleteA small point regarding Calvin Coolidge: Coolidge was indeed touted as a possible nominee in 1932 by Republicans who noticed that Hoover was doomed. Coolidge, however, would have none of it. He preferred, as the article above stated, "to stay retired." As it turns out, even if Coolidge had decided to give another go at the White House, he wouldn't have made it. He died in the January of 1933, before FDR took office. So even if Coolidge were elected he would not have survived to inauguration day.
ReplyDeleteDespite being lukewarm on Gore in 2000, I would have supported him over any of the other Democratic candidates in 2004. He won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote due to technicalities and shenanigans. He also came out swinging against the Iraq War at a time when many Democrats were too timid to do so. I think he was personally too discouraged by losing the South, and particularly his home state of Tennessee, to subject himself to another run, though.
ReplyDelete