Posted by SR on October 08, 2004
In Reply to: Challenger's advantage posted by Word Camel on October 08, 2004
: : : : In politics, the challenger is often said to have great disadvantages compared with the incumbent. Under the current situation in the US, however, the challenger has only to say that the incumbent did it wrong, and I would have done it right. His alternate plan, which has not been tested in the real world, would work while the incumbents real life plan had flaws and shortcomings.
: : : : Seems to me that you need a very closely split and divided electorate for this strategy to bear fruit. Is there any other evidence of this approach succeeding in a democracy?
: : :
: : : what does it have to do with phrases?
: : I guess the phrase is "challenger's advantage."
: Doh! That would make sense. Usually in US politics though, the incumbent usually has the advantage - even if he/she didn't do a very good job. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it has to do with people feeling more conservative about elections than other things. Better the devil you know...
The incumbent has all the trappings and conveniences of the office, such as staff, transportation, symbols etc., in which to wrap him/herself, consequently, the advantage in a bid for re-election. The challenger, on the other hand, is not burdened with the incumbent's performance record or "baggage," and is also said to have a certain type of advantage in an election.
Not to choose is to choose!