05-08-2008, 10:35 AM
Another interesting tidbit. In every yindoo elections, anti-incumbency is a major factor, in most cases deciding factor even. But US seems different, except the current one.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ial_pariah.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It's been noted here before that we have not had an election since 1952 in which an incumbent president or vice president was not running in at least partial defense of an existing administration's record.
That means Bush is not just a lame duck but an easy target for all three current candidates -- none of whom have any investment in the president's legacy.
Consider that the last president in a similar position was Harry Truman. He left office with an approval rating in the 20s, and it took years before historians revised the standard negative and mostly unfair view of him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I personally think its somewhat unfair. In any case , its interesting that anti-incumbency is not a factor in the US. Whether its a good thing or bad, I dont know.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ial_pariah.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It's been noted here before that we have not had an election since 1952 in which an incumbent president or vice president was not running in at least partial defense of an existing administration's record.
That means Bush is not just a lame duck but an easy target for all three current candidates -- none of whom have any investment in the president's legacy.
Consider that the last president in a similar position was Harry Truman. He left office with an approval rating in the 20s, and it took years before historians revised the standard negative and mostly unfair view of him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I personally think its somewhat unfair. In any case , its interesting that anti-incumbency is not a factor in the US. Whether its a good thing or bad, I dont know.