How About A Real President?

[editec]

The GNP grew at the rate of 2.6%

That would be considered a good rate of growth if we hadn't started out in a hole left by the economic depression.

AS it regards most things, Obama continues to fail to impress me.

As to the economy?

Well...I don't think the POTUS (any POTUS) really has much control over that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, before our left wing colleagues go forward endorsing his half-steps and full-blown blunders, it might be instructive to compare this President with several who have actually been presidential.

...General Andrew Jackson...

...President Lincoln...

President Roosevelt

Now we have a teachable moment...General Jackson became our seventh President, and the father of the Democrat Party...

that is why item #1 says 'Prior' to his presidency.
The story is meant to illustrate how a real executive 'takes the bit in his teeth.'

Get it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How About A Real President?


Real Republican presidents since 1970:

A real crook
A real klutz
A real figurehead
A real wimp
A real moron

What research!

What style!

What panache!

What a way with words!

 

[Synthaholic]

How About A Real President?


Real Republican presidents since 1970:

A real crook
A real klutz
A real figurehead
A real wimp
A real moron

What research!

What style!

What panache!

What a way with words!

What a lame thread!

 

[PoliticalChic]

How About A Real President?


Real Republican presidents since 1970:

A real crook
A real klutz
A real figurehead
A real wimp
A real moron

What research!

What style!

What panache!

What a way with words!

What a lame thread!

What a witty come-back!

 

[PoliticalChic]

President Obama is a real president.

It's sickening that the right..has gotten it into it's head it can de-legitimize a duly elected President when it's not the one they wanted. The Birchers tried it with Kennedy, Reagan (and Lee Atwater) made deals with the Iranians, the Republicans impeached Clinton and the Tea Party (and birthers) are doing it with Obama.

This sort of politics is both cynical and injurious to the nation.

"It's sickening that the right..has gotten it into it's head it can de-legitimize a duly elected President when it's not the one they wanted."

Sally...if you only had the gift of irony.

1. In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
Online NewsHour: Media Recount: Bush Won

2. The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....


3. New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com

4. An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.
The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
VOA | Newspaper Study Says Bush Won Florida Recount | News | English


If you had an honest bone in your body, you'll post the same thing about your side.

 

[Sallow]

President Obama is a real president.

It's sickening that the right..has gotten it into it's head it can de-legitimize a duly elected President when it's not the one they wanted. The Birchers tried it with Kennedy, Reagan (and Lee Atwater) made deals with the Iranians, the Republicans impeached Clinton and the Tea Party (and birthers) are doing it with Obama.

This sort of politics is both cynical and injurious to the nation.

"It's sickening that the right..has gotten it into it's head it can de-legitimize a duly elected President when it's not the one they wanted."

Sally...if you only had the gift of irony.

1. In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
Online NewsHour: Media Recount: Bush Won

2. The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....


3. New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com

4. An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.
The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
VOA | Newspaper Study Says Bush Won Florida Recount | News | English


If you had an honest bone in your body, you'll post the same thing about your side.

Funny you bring up George W. Bush..who lost the General election. But some how the state where his brother was sitting Governor, his campaign manager was the secretary of state, and a FOX news employee, who was his cousin called the election, became the battle ground. And a sitting judge, appointed by the man who his father was vice president for and close friend of his own running mate wrote the majority opinion which essentially stated this was a one time emergency decision never to be considered again in any other court case.

Yeah..that's legit.

 

[Stephanie]

President Obama is a real president.

It's sickening that the right..has gotten it into it's head it can de-legitimize a duly elected President when it's not the one they wanted. The Birchers tried it with Kennedy, Reagan (and Lee Atwater) made deals with the Iranians, the Republicans impeached Clinton and the Tea Party (and birthers) are doing it with Obama.

This sort of politics is both cynical and injurious to the nation.

oh boo hoo.

 

[code1211]

So, instead of improving the economy

What do you suppose the economy would be like if we'd let the major banks go out?(1)

We've been gaining jobs(2)

ginning up consumer confidence

How, exactly, is he supposed to boost your esteem?(3)

You don't want that to happen. You've repeatedly made that clear on these forums by objecting to the very policies [bans on imported goods from sweatshops, protective tariffs, steep taxes on goods imported from nations lacking environmental regulation] that would make that happen- like all the righties here.(4)

he race baits

It's the Right that always brings up his race(5)

'ZOMG THERE'S AN AFRICAN MUSLIM IN THE WHITE [MAN'S] HOUSE!!! REVOLUTION!!!!11!!'

, conducts class warfare

Like further tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% and rewarding bug corporations that ship your job and mine overseas to avoid paying living wages and having to dispose of toxic waste properly?(6)

1. The TARP is what saved the Financial institutions and that was a Bush program.

2. After 2 years of disaster in the economy while the Demns frittered away time and opportinity, the economy is beginning to overcome his influence. Sooner or later, it was going to happen. The Big 0's policies asurred it would be later.

3. My esteem has nothing to do with consumer confidence. The Big 0 has spent two years saying that we are in the worst economy since the Great Depression. In spite of his words, he does nothing to change it.

4. Protectionist policies like the ones that led to the Great Depression and the ones you endorse do not help the economy.

5. The Big 0 has one winning move and that is to create the enemy in his oratory and then to blame that enemy for all ills and to attack that enemy. It might be the rich who don't pay enough tax or the employers who don't hire the unemployed or the bankers or the insurance companies or the Arizona population or any of a plethora of scape goats he points out to support his own failed policies. It's an old tactic. At least he hasn't blamed the Jews yet... Well, he seems to be be blaming them for the problems in the Middle East. Stay tuned.

6. Class warfare is class warfare. I'm glad that at least you notice it even if you agree with it. When we discover that we cannot compete, your solution is to keep others from competting? How's the round tube mostly green colored TV working out for you? How about that 6000 pound Plymouth Fury III?

Yeah, let's eliminate competition and enjoy the benefits.

 

[Flopper]

Obama now up to 50% in presidential approval, within 3 points of the 52 week high according to Gallup. Apparently half the public feels he has what it takes.

Presidential Job Approval Center

 

[PoliticalChic]

President Obama is a real president.

It's sickening that the right..has gotten it into it's head it can de-legitimize a duly elected President when it's not the one they wanted. The Birchers tried it with Kennedy, Reagan (and Lee Atwater) made deals with the Iranians, the Republicans impeached Clinton and the Tea Party (and birthers) are doing it with Obama.

This sort of politics is both cynical and injurious to the nation.

"It's sickening that the right..has gotten it into it's head it can de-legitimize a duly elected President when it's not the one they wanted."

Sally...if you only had the gift of irony.

1. In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
Online NewsHour: Media Recount: Bush Won

2. The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....


3. New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com

4. An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.
The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
VOA | Newspaper Study Says Bush Won Florida Recount | News | English


If you had an honest bone in your body, you'll post the same thing about your side.

Funny you bring up George W. Bush..who lost the General election. But some how the state where his brother was sitting Governor, his campaign manager was the secretary of state, and a FOX news employee, who was his cousin called the election, became the battle ground. And a sitting judge, appointed by the man who his father was vice president for and close friend of his own running mate wrote the majority opinion which essentially stated this was a one time emergency decision never to be considered again in any other court case.

Yeah..that's legit.

This is not a sign of mental well being, Sally.

1. I gave you several citations of independent examinations of the vote, and all concluded that President Bush won.

2. "George W. Bush..who lost the General election."
Of course, this is an outright fabrication.

No doubt, rather than concluding that you have some sort of dementia, you must either be a recent visitor to this great country, or posting from some foreign location.

Therefore let me disabuse you of whatever thought process led you to said erroneous conclusion about President Bush having "lost the General election."

You see, in this nation we have what is known as The Electoral College.
Allow me to give a tutorial, so that you don't embarrass yourself in the future.

"Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):
• Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
• The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
• Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
• Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
• In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.
• The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
• The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
• In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.
Since the 12th Amendment, there have been several federal and State statutory changes which have affected both the time and manner of choosing Presidential Electors but which have not further altered the fundamental workings of the Electoral College. There have also been a few curious incidents which its critics cite as problems but which proponents of the Electoral College view as merely its natural and intended operation.

For more on the Electoral College
NARA | Federal Register | U.S. Electoral College


It is not necessary to thank me...just don't make that mistake again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama now up to 50% in presidential approval, within 3 points of the 52 week high according to Gallup. Apparently half the public feels he has what it takes.

Presidential Job Approval Center

Have you heard of the "Bradley Effect"?

 

[Sallow]

Bush lost the General Election. I know exactly what the Electoral College is. But the fact is Gore got more votes.

And any one of the factors I posted before your cut and paste extravaganza would have sent the right wing home to get their shootin' irons.


What about that goes over your head?

 

[Sheldon]

Now, before our left wing colleagues go forward endorsing his half-steps and full-blown blunders, it might be instructive to compare this President with several who have actually been presidential.

...General Andrew Jackson...

President Roosevelt

Now we have a teachable moment...General Jackson became our seventh President, and the father of the Democrat Party...

that is why item #1 says 'Prior' to his presidency.
The story is meant to illustrate how a real executive 'takes the bit in his teeth.'

Get it?

I recognize my post had little to no substance. To be blunt, I was looking at animated pictures last night, found a few I liked, and then looked for an OP that I could use them on.

On topic, I'll just say this: your view of a "real President" is my view of someone toeing the line of being dictatorial--tomato/tomahto I guess.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bush lost the General Election. I know exactly what the Electoral College is. But the fact is Gore got more votes.

And any one of the factors I posted before your cut and paste extravaganza would have sent the right wing home to get their shootin' irons.


What about that goes over your head?

Poor, poor Sallow.

You still don't understand that in this great nation, elections of a President are not based on the popular vote, but on the Electoral College vote.

Thus, there is no 'General Election,' it exists only as a figment of your fevered imagination.
Freud would probably refer to it as 'wish fulfillment.'

Sadly, I can explain it to you, I just can't comprehend it for you.

Now, here is a pop quiz:
Can you name the three Presidents who recieved over 500 electoral college votes?

 

[Flopper]

It's interesting that you compare Jackson to Obama. A slave holder, a supporter of slavery and primarily responsible for the Trail of Tears, Jackson was one of our most racist presidents.

 

[code1211]

President Obama is a real president.

It's sickening that the right..has gotten it into it's head it can de-legitimize a duly elected President when it's not the one they wanted. The Birchers tried it with Kennedy, Reagan (and Lee Atwater) made deals with the Iranians, the Republicans impeached Clinton and the Tea Party (and birthers) are doing it with Obama.

This sort of politics is both cynical and injurious to the nation.

"It's sickening that the right..has gotten it into it's head it can de-legitimize a duly elected President when it's not the one they wanted."

Sally...if you only had the gift of irony.

1. In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
Online NewsHour: Media Recount: Bush Won

2. The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....


3. New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com

4. An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.
The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
VOA | Newspaper Study Says Bush Won Florida Recount | News | English


If you had an honest bone in your body, you'll post the same thing about your side.

Funny you bring up George W. Bush..who lost the General election. But some how the state where his brother was sitting Governor, his campaign manager was the secretary of state, and a FOX news employee, who was his cousin called the election, became the battle ground. And a sitting judge, appointed by the man who his father was vice president for and close friend of his own running mate wrote the majority opinion which essentially stated this was a one time emergency decision never to be considered again in any other court case.

Yeah..that's legit.

It's quite probable that the people who voted cast a majority of votes that were intended to elect Gore. That is Probable. What is actual is that the ballots recounted numerous time before and and after the final results showed that Bush won the state.

How can that be?

Well, in the state of Florida, the Butterfly ballot designed by and approved by Democrat Party operatives was the, again, probable, cause. About 3000 people in the very Democrat precincts of Broward County voted in heavy majorities for Pat Buchannon. The people who cast these ballots were too stupid to be able to read the instructions or to read the ballot at all or to ask for help.

3000 people with suspect intelligence voted for the wrong guy. No matter what the outcome of the election, our president resulting from that election was determined by people too stupid to vote.

 

[Sallow]

Bush lost the General Election. I know exactly what the Electoral College is. But the fact is Gore got more votes.

And any one of the factors I posted before your cut and paste extravaganza would have sent the right wing home to get their shootin' irons.


What about that goes over your head?

Poor, poor Sallow.

You still don't understand that in this great nation, elections of a President are not based on the popular vote, but on the Electoral College vote.

Thus, there is no 'General Election,' it exists only as a figment of your fevered imagination.
Freud would probably refer to it as 'wish fulfillment.'

Sadly, I can explain it to you, I just can't comprehend it for you.

Now, here is a pop quiz:
Can you name the three Presidents who recieved over 500 electoral college votes?

You're missing the point. But that's okay..you frequently do.

And you're adding in a "neener neener" for effect.

I am quite correct in my post. Add in the data from Florida was corrupted..in that it couldn't be trusted.

The right would not have put up with the same circumstances in reverse. Heck..they keep making things up about Democratic presidents. I've pointed that out as well.

None of this you can honestly refute.

 

[Sallow]

"It's sickening that the right..has gotten it into it's head it can de-legitimize a duly elected President when it's not the one they wanted."

Sally...if you only had the gift of irony.

1. In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
Online NewsHour: Media Recount: Bush Won

2. The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....


3. New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com

4. An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.
The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
VOA | Newspaper Study Says Bush Won Florida Recount | News | English


If you had an honest bone in your body, you'll post the same thing about your side.

Funny you bring up George W. Bush..who lost the General election. But some how the state where his brother was sitting Governor, his campaign manager was the secretary of state, and a FOX news employee, who was his cousin called the election, became the battle ground. And a sitting judge, appointed by the man who his father was vice president for and close friend of his own running mate wrote the majority opinion which essentially stated this was a one time emergency decision never to be considered again in any other court case.

Yeah..that's legit.

It's quite probable that the people who voted cast a majority of votes that were intended to elect Gore. That is Probable. What is actual is that the ballots recounted numerous time before and and after the final results showed that Bush won the state.

How can that be?

Well, in the state of Florida, the Butterfly ballot designed by and approved by Democrat Party operatives was the, again, probable, cause. About 3000 people in the very Democrat precincts of Broward County voted in heavy majorities for Pat Buchannon. The people who cast these ballots were too stupid to be able to read the instructions or to read the ballot at all or to ask for help.

3000 people with suspect intelligence voted for the wrong guy. No matter what the outcome of the election, our president resulting from that election was determined by people too stupid to vote.

Good one..

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bush lost the General Election. I know exactly what the Electoral College is. But the fact is Gore got more votes.

And any one of the factors I posted before your cut and paste extravaganza would have sent the right wing home to get their shootin' irons.


What about that goes over your head?

Poor, poor Sallow.

You still don't understand that in this great nation, elections of a President are not based on the popular vote, but on the Electoral College vote.

Thus, there is no 'General Election,' it exists only as a figment of your fevered imagination.
Freud would probably refer to it as 'wish fulfillment.'

Sadly, I can explain it to you, I just can't comprehend it for you.

Now, here is a pop quiz:
Can you name the three Presidents who recieved over 500 electoral college votes?

You're missing the point. But that's okay..you frequently do.

And you're adding in a "neener neener" for effect.

I am quite correct in my post. Add in the data from Florida was corrupted..in that it couldn't be trusted.

The right would not have put up with the same circumstances in reverse. Heck..they keep making things up about Democratic presidents. I've pointed that out as well.

None of this you can honestly refute.

Your posts are like the string of dominoes that children set up so that they can be knocked down.

One fantasy after another....

"The right would not have put up with the same circumstances in reverse."

Consider reading about the JFK-Nixon election.
You have heard of Chicago, haven't you?