Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Bush v Clinton in 1992?
I think you've misunderstood the question, which was about a President failing to get re-nomination rather than re-election. Clearly, several (including Bush) have failed to be re-elected, but were re-nominated by their party.
Although I'd note Johnson briefly ran for re-nomination in 1968 - it's just that he pulled out after a disappointing result in New Hampshire, which he only narrowly won. He said it was on the basis of ill-health (and his health was a factor although not the only factor) but arguably he did seek re-nomination.
He hadn't been defeated in an election!
But I don't really know how you define "defeat" in a primary process where candidates many withdrew. I mean, Mike Pence sought the Republican nomination in 2024, and Kamala Harris sought the Democratic one in 2020. They weren't "defeated" in the sense that they withdrew before the first primary. But they were certainly "defeated" in that they sought the nomination and didn't get it.
Johnson is an interesting one as he actually won the New Hampshire vote. But it was such a narrow win, then RFK entered the race. So he saw no successful way forward for his campaign and he withdrew (albeit ill-health made that decision clearer). I think that is, in a meaningful sense, defeat.
Aaargh! That's not what I said!
I said when has an incumbent president defeated in a PRESIDENTIAL election been renominated by their party for a later presidential election!
And the last example was Cleveland in 1892. Who won, ominously.
(I suppose Nixon as the incumbent VP might be considered close.)
You may have meant that, but you didn't say it. You said, "Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?"
I certainly did say it. As everyone else has grasped with zero trouble.
I have no idea how you have misread a very simple sentence, but you have.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
Yep, the state pension age needs to be raised and means-tested.
Sorry.
Yes , the worst pension in the developed world, idiot.
Comments
I have no idea how you have misread a very simple sentence, but you have.
AKA "I'm not very chuffed", or "I'm dischuffed".