Pick Of The Litter

In a (premature) discussion of Mitt Romney's chances in 2012, we get this:

In recent history, there has been a striking difference in how the two parties choose their presidential nominees. The Democrats seem fond of underdogs and long-shots--Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. Republicans, on the other hand, have almost robotically selected the next guy in line--whoever finished second last time, or seems to have the nomination coming by virtue of his services to the party. Thus, we got Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain. It's actually a pretty stunning trend.

I question this sort of trendmongering. How Presidents are picked changes so quickly, and there are so few examples, that most supposed trends are meaningless.

Let's look at recent history (say, starting with the 70s--before then was the prehistoric days when conventions actually mattered). It makes sense that familiar names run, and when the Dems are in the White House, as you'd expect, the President gets to run for a second term (Carter, Clinton) and, if his two terms are up, the Veep runs (Gore). It just worked out after they've been the wilderness, as they've found themselves lately, a bunch of Dems will run and fight it out, and with no clear leader, seeming underdogs win. Even then, we often see familiar names. Mondale ran in 1984 and Kerry in 2004. And of the "odd" choices, there's generally a specific situation explaining it, not a generalized preference for underdogs. Carter appeared in a crowded field when being an "outsider" (post-Watergate) was very helpful. Being a southerner didn't hurt in the primaries either. Clinton ran, probably not expecting to win, but only had to face the B-team when the top names didn't declare their candidacy, frightened by Bush the Elder's monumental popularity. He was in the right place at the right time, and even then almost blew it, but the perceived recession along with the nutty antics of Perot handed him the election. Obama was in an open field and happened to be the only guy who was 100% pure on Iraq, which was what the frothing base demanded. They almost shot themselves in the foot with their pick, but then the economy collapsed and he seemed the better choice.

Let's look at Republican choices. Is it just a case of party members rubber stamping the next in line? Well, Nixon ran again in 1972, of course, and coasted to victory. Then his Veep Ford ran, which makes sense (would have been Agnew, let's not forget, if he'd still been in office), and even then had a tough fight against Reagan. Reagan, with his strong showing in 1976, was the popular choice for 1980, but remember he was still more a radical outsider, with Bush being more the "inside" man. Reagan gets to run again, and then his Veep gets to run again, wins, and of course gets to run again. This isn't rubber stamping, this is just common sense.

Then in 1996, they make a dull choice, Dole, but there was no one else who had the popularity to take it away--similar to Mondale in 1984. In 2000, after 8 years out of power, they don't go with the next guy in line, but pick Bush--he may have had a big name, but it's not like he was an insider (and it's not like his daddy was popular with the base). He gets to run again, of course. Then comes McCain. Is he chosen because he's the "next guy?" Of course not. (If anything, the "next guy" was Cheney.) He was a "maverick," not popular with his party. Also, his campaign was all but written off, but what happened was a series of events where everyone else fought each other and all the major names imploded, leaving McCain the last man standing.

So no, it's not a "stunning trend." I'm not even sure if it's a trend at all. At best it's a coincidence.