I’ve always read about the incumbent advantage, but I don’t understand why that would exist. Wouldn’t an incumbent have to demonstrate what s/he has accomplished in office versus a newcomer who could make any claim since the burden of proof won’t be on them?
In: Other
There’s no fundamental reason why this has to be true. It’s not always true: some politicians lose popularity because their track record is terrible or looks terrible.
The rule is just an observation: incumbents seem to have an edge in elections. Explaining why is a bunch of different things that add up to usually having that edge.
Latest Answers