Obama: Two Sides of the Incumbency Coin

Obama’s biggest advantage in this election is also his biggest disadvantage: Incumbency. The reason it is his biggest advantage is because incumbents almost always win. The reason it is his biggest disadvantage is because unlike in 2008, he has a record on which he must run. Obama’s reelection prospects reside on two sides of the same incumbency coin.

If there is one overriding trend of American politics it is that incumbents usually win. Regardless of the level of the election, incumbents have big advantages.

Some of these advantages are automatic. Assuming they won their offices, incumbents are proven winners. Assuming they do at least an adequate job, they build a good record, or at least establish familiarity with their constituents. And when it comes time to run they can generate countless opportunities to appear positively before the public.

Some of these advantages are politician-made. Incumbents can raise enormous sums of campaign cash – adhering to rules that they frequently crafted themselves. They are rarely challenged for their party’s nomination – such is incumbency’s advantage, political bosses do all they can to preserve it. And in the case of state legislatures and the House of Representatives, they preside over the drawing of the districts in which they are to run.

From wherever the advantages originate, they are very real and very effective. In the case of presidents, they are so real that since Hoover lost in 1932, only two elected presidents have lost reelection – Carter in 1980 and Bush in 1992.

Obama is enjoying all these advantages to their utmost. It is unsurprising therefore that he is leading in most polls right now. Historically, the surprise is that the lead is so narrow.

The reason Obama’s lead is so narrow is the other side of the incumbency coin: Incumbents have a record. Compared to Obama 2008, Obama 2012 is at a distinct disadvantage.

In 2008, Obama was a blank slate upon which the electorate could draw whatever they wished to see – change, hope, unity. In 2012, Obama’s slate is now loaded with divisive issues – an unpopular health care plan, a poorly performing economy, high unemployment, huge federal spending, and an enormous federal debt.

Not only must Obama the incumbent run with these, he is constrained in where he can run with them. The public knows America’s problems are huge – even those supporting Obama. If there is one sentiment bridging the nation’s partisan divide, it is that America needs fundamental change.

The problem for Obama the incumbent is again how to convince people that he can deliver that fundamental change. In 2008, it was easy – all Obama the candidate had to do was to promise, not deliver. Four years later, the stakes and the public’s skepticism are much higher.

Obama’s problem goes well beyond the fact that he has had four years in office, it goes to the constraints of incumbency itself. When things have not gone well for the incumbent and change is sought, he finds himself stuck in a damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t predicament.

Admitting that fundamental change is in order, is to implicate himself. Remeber: he promised fundamental change four years ago. Why change fundamentally now, if Obama the incumbent has done a good job? And if fundamental change is in order, then what better place to start than the incumbent?

Seeking to sell incremental change in the face of adversity is no less risky. While this route exonerates the incumbent, in the breach of real crisis, it threatens to insult the electorate. Why if serious difficulties threaten, is tinkering around the edges sufficient?

Under such circumstances, the incumbent’s reelection rides a razor’s edge. He must acknowledge that times are tough, but convince the public that things are not as bad as they seem. He must convince those, who now recognize he is not as good as they once thought, that he is still good enough.

Incumbency both brings Obama to the threshold of reelection and threatens to keep him from crossing it. As proof: If a candidate promised to implement what has transpired over the last four years, he would lose in a landslide. And if Obama’s first four years had been other than what they were, he would be on his way to winning in a walk.

The two sides of the incumbency coin are equally powerful in this year’s election. And how Obama handles this conundrum will determine its outcome. Which may be why this election now seems as if could be decided by the flip of a coin.