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
Name recognition is huge. That’s why lawn signs are carpet bombed everywhere. Incumbent has had 4 years of a name being mentioned, being interviewed on the news etc. New entrants have to break through somehow.
Most people don’t follow politics very closely. I’d wager a good number of people can’t even name their own incumbent. But when they get to the ballot, the name is still recognizable because they heard it somewhere before. So right away it’s mentally moved to the top of the list because they’ve already won once and so they have a chance of winning again.
Also the incumbent has a real record and actual accomplishments they can tout to voters who are paying attention. So the only way a new individual is going to unseat an incumbent is if they’ve really pissed off the whole voting base to such an extent that even the apolitical ones want a change.
Latest Answers