Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (55884)	7/23/2004 6:19:45 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793877

The Challenge of the Challenger Cafe Hayek blog Watching Sandy Berger twist in the wind this week reminds me of how difficult it is to challenge a non-incumbent. Berger was Kerry's national security advisor for the same reason Bush has Cheney and Rumsfield on his team. You trot out what is the lowest risk people, the people who have been there already, the people with a track record, the people who remind the voters of other more reconizable names. In this case, it has backfired because Berger has to quit. But the impulse to go with the old team, be it Clinton's or Bush's (or Reagan or Nixon's) is understandable. You have enough handicaps as the challenger already—you don't want to try and convince voters that you're new, untested foreign policy team will be just fine. Kerry will simply replace Berger with another old war horse. The challenge of the challenger is an enormous problem for Kerry. Who is he? Political mavens know him well. Most people know he's from Massachusetts. How many have any idea what he's really about? A lot of that defining will come from a relentless ad campaign from Bush. Bush's goal as the incumbent is to set people's expectations about Kerry rather than letting Kerry do the defining. To make matters worse, Kerry is a former Senator. There is a reason that Senators have been abysmal at becoming President. They take lots of different positions on lots of different legislation. So even if they are principled, it is easy for an opponent to make a Senator look otherwise. The essential advantage of the incumbent is name recognition. Contrary to popular belief, the importance and edge from name recognition is nothing new in politics. Look at the first ten Presidents of the United States. (Here's a nice list from Wikipedia.). Other than Van Buren, each was either a Founder, a war hero or a son of a President. All were famous men. All were well known. Van Buren was merely a former Senator. The last former Senator to win the Presidency was JFK, who won in a squeaker forty-four years ago. Recent losers include Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale and Dole. Many more former Senators have failed in their quest to get the nomination. The current JFK will struggle to emulate the former JFK. The power of the incumbent and the challenge of the challenger to establish name recognition and identity is one of the reasons to be skeptical of campaign finance laws. They make it much harder for talented, non-famous people to enter Presidential politics. Posted by Russell Roberts in Politics