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
Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. The incumbent is a known quantity, you know what you’ll get. The challenger is more of a wildcard, they can talk all they want but it’s not really known what they will actually do in office and that uncertainty works against them.
Latest Answers