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
Counterpoint: an incumbent can point to what they’ve done as proof they are capable of “doing the job”, and the challenger must prove they, too, have what it takes, but cant point to actual experience in the job as proof.
Also, in many cases, the simple name recognition is a big help. Like them or loathe them, the fact they are in the news, being talked about, is effectively giving them literally *millions* in free advertisement. It can be really hard to overcome this.
case in point: can you, without going to google, name ANY of the other Republican or Democrat candidates in the presidential primary? if you can name one, how many others can you name?
Latest Answers