While the general rule is subject to at least two exceptions (FDR was challenged by Jim Farley and John Nance Garner in 1940 and got reelected ,and in 1972 Nixon was challenged by Pete McCloskey and a right wing Congressman from Ohio and got re-elected), it is certainly correct in that if a sitting President faces an internal challenge, it suggests a weakness to be exploited in the general election.
But it is a different thing entirely when the party out of power or when the Presidency becomes vacant. The hand wringing over a contested the Democrats convention is puzzling. It seems to me a candidate that wins a political fight at a convention fair and square would go into the election with greater legitimacy than one who wins without serious contest or by way of backroom wheeling and dealing. Is democratic debate and decision making something this country's political culture can no longer handle?
In reality, an out of control convention would be scary to some - who knows what they might do - like pass platform planks for withdrawal from Iraq, for single payer health care reform etc etc - that neither candidate would support. Even so, isn't the presence of super delegates enough to prevent that? SR
-------------- Original message -------------- From: Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com>
>
> I agree with Doug--because the Dumbo's are the Opposition. But after
> the contested or denied nomination of an incumbent president no party
> has *ever* retained the White House. The list:
>
>