If George HW Bush didnt get re-elected - why should Obama?

[Sallow]

Bush had huge favorable performance ratings after the Gulf War(historic highs) - a decent economy, yet wasn't rewarded with a 2nd term.

Still can't figure.....................

Obama has historic low ratings and the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Trying to prop up his image with fake foreign policy "successes."

Hope the voters dont reward him with a 2nd term.

Well, it wasn't a decent ecomomy. It was an awful economy.

He also lost the support of much of his base by pandering to the center, as manifested in the Buchanan/Perot insurgency.

But the real reason why Obama has such a good chance is because the Republicans aren't offering good alternatives.

Clinton, say what you want about him, was a dynamic candidate. Women wanted him and men wanted to be him.
I don't think anyone wants to be Mitt Romney.

You hit the nail right on the head.

Charisma. Reagan had it. Clinton had it. Bush II had it. Obama has it.

Romney is about as charismatic as John Thain. Or Dick Fuld.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bush lost because of his NAFTA push.

Exactly! And that's why Clinton, who actually signed NAFTA, lost in 1996.

I don't know if you know this but 1992 and 1996 were two different years.

So Bush lost for not passing NAFTA and Clinton won despite actually signing the bill?

 

[jillian]

Bush had huge favorable performance ratings after the Gulf War(historic highs) - a decent economy, yet wasn't rewarded with a 2nd term.

Still can't figure.....................

Obama has historic low ratings and the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Trying to prop up his image with fake foreign policy "successes."

Hope the voters dont reward him with a 2nd term.

Bush I didn't have a decent economy.he had a recession. and he was disengaged.

but the reality is, there was a better candidate running against him.

so far the GOP seems dead set against picking a candidate that could get anyone other than "the base" to vote for him.

To be fair..he had to fix what Reagan and his Voodoo economics left him.

It wasn't pretty.

well, yes... and no. reagan talked about voodoo economics... and daddy bush knew it was voodoo economics. but reagan raised taxes 6 times. yet it was bush's "read my lips" that ultimately did him in.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bush I didn't have a decent economy.he had a recession. and he was disengaged.

but the reality is, there was a better candidate running against him.

so far the GOP seems dead set against picking a candidate that could get anyone other than "the base" to vote for him.

To be fair..he had to fix what Reagan and his Voodoo economics left him.

It wasn't pretty.

well, yes... and no. reagan talked about voodoo economics... and daddy bush knew it was voodoo economics. but reagan raised taxes 6 times. yet it was bush's "read my lips" that ultimately did him in.

And yet, under Reagan, the top rate went from 70% to 28%.....

 

[Truthseeker420]

Exactly! And that's why Clinton, who actually signed NAFTA, lost in 1996.

I don't know if you know this but 1992 and 1996 were two different years.

So Bush lost for not passing NAFTA and Clinton won despite actually signing the bill?

by 1996 it was old news Perot wasn't running and Dole was his opponent. Americans have a very short attention span and the Americans were still able to live good off their credit cards and hadn't felt the pain of NAFTA.

 

[Utilitarian]

Bush had huge favorable performance ratings after the Gulf War(historic highs) - a decent economy, yet wasn't rewarded with a 2nd term.

Still can't figure.....................

Obama has historic low ratings and the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Trying to prop up his image with fake foreign policy "successes."

Hope the voters dont reward him with a 2nd term.

It really doesn't matter anyway. You can vote for candidate #1 bought by Goldman Sachs or candidate #2 bought by Goldman Sachs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know if you know this but 1992 and 1996 were two different years.

So Bush lost for not passing NAFTA and Clinton won despite actually signing the bill?

by 1996 it was old news Perot wasn't running and Dole was his opponent. Americans have a very short attention span and the Americans were still able to live good off their credit cards and hadn't felt the pain of NAFTA.

Ummmm....in 1996, Perot was running.

If Americans forget NAFTA, 3 years after Clinton signed it, imagine how much attention they paid to it before it even got through Congress.

 

[JoeB131]

Bush did have a good economy. The recession had ended in March 1991. 1992 GDP growth was 4.5% Q1, 4.3% Q2, 4.2% Q3 and 4.3% Q4. Obama will be lucky to get half that growth next year.

But he was rudderless. Without Reagan's conservative principles, he was a go along to get along guy. And the Dems duped him.
That's why we won't fall for a tax hike/spending cut deal now.

3 words, buh bye Obama.

GDP growth doesn't mean that much when you have 8% unemployment. I got out of the Army in February 1992, and the job market was pathetic. 20,000 people applying for 500 positions, long lines in the snow for job applications.

The thing is, right now, the recession has been going on long enough where people are sort of numb to it. While Obama's recession is worse, he didn't inherit a healthy economy and run it into the ditch like Bush did.

Also, again, the Republican hopefuls are so hopeless that Obama doesn't have to worry that much.

 

[jillian]

To be fair..he had to fix what Reagan and his Voodoo economics left him.

It wasn't pretty.

well, yes... and no. reagan talked about voodoo economics... and daddy bush knew it was voodoo economics. but reagan raised taxes 6 times. yet it was bush's "read my lips" that ultimately did him in.

And yet, under Reagan, the top rate went from 70% to 28%.....

i don't believe that's correct. I know there's this mythology around Reagan for the right, but he often said one thing and did another.

unfortunately, his disciples think he meant what he said.

 

[Rocko]

Bush had huge favorable performance ratings after the Gulf War(historic highs) - a decent economy, yet wasn't rewarded with a 2nd term.

Still can't figure.....................

Obama has historic low ratings and the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Trying to prop up his image with fake foreign policy "successes."

Hope the voters dont reward him with a 2nd term.

Bush I didn't have a decent economy.he had a recession. and he was disengaged.

but the reality is, there was a better candidate running against him.

so far the GOP seems dead set against picking a candidate that could get anyone other than "the base" to vote for him.

I wouldn't say Perot was definitely a better candidate, but Bush did fuck up by raising taxes, which paved the way for the sleaziest president, present company excluded, to hold the White House.

 

[jillian]

Bush had huge favorable performance ratings after the Gulf War(historic highs) - a decent economy, yet wasn't rewarded with a 2nd term.

Still can't figure.....................

Obama has historic low ratings and the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Trying to prop up his image with fake foreign policy "successes."

Hope the voters dont reward him with a 2nd term.

Bush I didn't have a decent economy.he had a recession. and he was disengaged.

but the reality is, there was a better candidate running against him.

so far the GOP seems dead set against picking a candidate that could get anyone other than "the base" to vote for him.

I wouldn't say Perot was definitely a better candidate, but Bush did fuck up by raising taxes, which paved the way for the sleaziest president, present company excluded, to hold the White House.

I was referring to Clinton.

as for the rest of your post.. .clinton was still the best president i've seen in my lifetime.

rightwingnut hacks are amusing.

 

[editec]

Bush had huge favorable performance ratings after the Gulf War(historic highs) - a decent economy, yet wasn't rewarded with a 2nd term.

Still can't figure.....................

You can't? I can. Remember this?

Read my lips. No new taxes
​

When Bush I did the right thing for the economy, when he raised taxes to deal with growing national debts like a good stewart POTUS ought to do, his own constituents in the GOP abandoned him.​

 

[Rocko]

Bush I didn't have a decent economy.he had a recession. and he was disengaged.

but the reality is, there was a better candidate running against him.

so far the GOP seems dead set against picking a candidate that could get anyone other than "the base" to vote for him.

I wouldn't say Perot was definitely a better candidate, but Bush did fuck up by raising taxes, which paved the way for the sleaziest president, present company excluded, to hold the White House.

I was referring to Clinton.

as for the rest of your post.. .clinton was still the best president i've seen in my lifetime.

rightwingnut hacks are amusing.

Yea they are. Let me know when you see one, we can both laugh together.

Ah Bill Clinton, loves himself some muslims....doesn't he??? Or at least their money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well, yes... and no. reagan talked about voodoo economics... and daddy bush knew it was voodoo economics. but reagan raised taxes 6 times. yet it was bush's "read my lips" that ultimately did him in.

And yet, under Reagan, the top rate went from 70% to 28%.....

i don't believe that's correct. I know there's this mythology around Reagan for the right, but he often said one thing and did another.

unfortunately, his disciples think he meant what he said.

Believe it or not, it's a fact.

Historical Top Tax Rate

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bush did have a good economy. The recession had ended in March 1991. 1992 GDP growth was 4.5% Q1, 4.3% Q2, 4.2% Q3 and 4.3% Q4. Obama will be lucky to get half that growth next year.

But he was rudderless. Without Reagan's conservative principles, he was a go along to get along guy. And the Dems duped him.
That's why we won't fall for a tax hike/spending cut deal now.

3 words, buh bye Obama.

GDP growth doesn't mean that much when you have 8% unemployment. I got out of the Army in February 1992, and the job market was pathetic. 20,000 people applying for 500 positions, long lines in the snow for job applications.

The thing is, right now, the recession has been going on long enough where people are sort of numb to it. While Obama's recession is worse, he didn't inherit a healthy economy and run it into the ditch like Bush did.

Also, again, the Republican hopefuls are so hopeless that Obama doesn't have to worry that much.

GDP growth, or the lack of it, means even less when unemployment is over 9%.
Buh bye Barry.

 

[blastoff]

The only way IMO Barry gets reelected is if enough Republican voters fall for a Perot 2.0 third candidate.

 

[JoeB131]

Bush did have a good economy. The recession had ended in March 1991. 1992 GDP growth was 4.5% Q1, 4.3% Q2, 4.2% Q3 and 4.3% Q4. Obama will be lucky to get half that growth next year.

But he was rudderless. Without Reagan's conservative principles, he was a go along to get along guy. And the Dems duped him.
That's why we won't fall for a tax hike/spending cut deal now.

3 words, buh bye Obama.

GDP growth doesn't mean that much when you have 8% unemployment. I got out of the Army in February 1992, and the job market was pathetic. 20,000 people applying for 500 positions, long lines in the snow for job applications.

The thing is, right now, the recession has been going on long enough where people are sort of numb to it. While Obama's recession is worse, he didn't inherit a healthy economy and run it into the ditch like Bush did.

Also, again, the Republican hopefuls are so hopeless that Obama doesn't have to worry that much.

GDP growth, or the lack of it, means even less when unemployment is over 9%.
Buh bye Barry.

I put his chances at about 50/50. Only because he's still likable, and his Republican Opponents aren't.

 

[Dragon]

To answer the OP:

George H.W. Bush was opposed in 1992 by a sane person with a fair grasp of reality who wasn't going to govern according to weird ideas properly the business of fringe cults. That's not true of Obama in 2012.

It really couldn't be any simpler than that. In my opinion, he really doesn't deserve a second term, but he'll probably get one, because the alternative is just appalling. Sad but true.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because "It's the economy, stupid!"

Oh wait...

 

[Avatar4321]

To answer the OP:

George H.W. Bush was opposed in 1992 by a sane person with a fair grasp of reality who wasn't going to govern according to weird ideas properly the business of fringe cults. That's not true of Obama in 2012.

It really couldn't be any simpler than that. In my opinion, he really doesn't deserve a second term, but he'll probably get one, because the alternative is just appalling. Sad but true.

Yeah, lower taxes, living within our means, less government inferference in our lives, and actually living according to our Constitution. That's just absolutely appalling!