ODDS stacked heavily against GOP Presidential run in 2012...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElephantMcDonk, Feb 9, 2011.

  1. ElephantMcDonk
    Offline

    ElephantMcDonk Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    223
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +26
    ODDS stacked heavily against GOP Presidential run in 2012...

    If we look historically for a guide:

    2004, Bush is reelected
    1996, Clinton is reelected
    1992, Bush Sr. loses, but with a split vote (Perot) and against a much more charismatic candidate (Clinton)
    1984, Reagan is reelected
    1980, Carter loses, but with a split party (Kennedy) and against a much more charismatic candidate (Reagan)
    1972, Nixon is reelected
    1956, Eisenhower is reelected
    1948, Truman is reeelcted
    1936,'40,'44, Roosevelt is reelected

    ...11 campaigns for reelection since the Great Depression and radio addresses. 9 of 11 were successful. The two that weren't required a unique set of circumstances. #1, the candidate running against the incumbent was far superior. It would be hard to argue that Clinton and Reagan were not juggernauts. And #2, a split party. Bush certainly lost more to Perot than Clinton did. Carter lost a big chunk to Teddy. Those circumstances won't fall into place in 2012. There are no potential candidates that Obama will pale in comparison to and the party will not split. The only chance I see of a split would be Bloomberg or Feingold I suppose, but I don't think that's likely.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    I think it's still early 2011.

    Check back with me after the nominating conventions.
     
  3. VaYank5150
    Offline

    VaYank5150 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,779
    Thanks Received:
    1,047
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    Plus....history had no Caribou Barbie!
     
  4. Claudette
    Offline

    Claudette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,558
    Thanks Received:
    3,009
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,621
    The encumbant always has the edge.

    Nothing new there.
     
  5. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    15,490
    Thanks Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,352
    Unemployment stays high, economy continues to spiral, O loses. Reverse that scenario, O has a decent shot at winning.
     
  6. Dr.Traveler
    Offline

    Dr.Traveler Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,925
    Thanks Received:
    650
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    In a Non-Euclidean Manifold
    Ratings:
    +1,047
    Its hard to say, as almost the whole ball of wax will depend on the economy.

    Incumbent Presidents tend to win re-election, especially when they're dealing with a hostile legislature like Clinton and Reagan. Incumbents facing a bad economy almost always lose.

    Personally, if I were a betting man I probably wouldn't bet on Obama. Unless the GOP nominates Palin, Obama is looking like a weaker and weaker President, and my opinion is that an economic recovery is looking less and less likely.
     
  7. ElephantMcDonk
    Offline

    ElephantMcDonk Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    223
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +26
    You guys are not seeing the forest for the trees.

    11 re-election bids since 1936. 9 have been successful. The 2 that weren't required a unique set of circumstances, including a 3rd party taking away votes from the incumbent and a super strong challenger. Neither of these things will be the case in 2012.

    The economy would have to have a double dip and get substantially worse in 2012 combined with a surprisingly phenomenal GOP challenger and perhaps a challenge from the left to prevent Obama from being reelected.

    This whole thing where a Republican poster pretends like he thinks Obama is going to lose in 2012 and spinning things that way is silly. You got to come up with some kind of explanation as to how you see him losing. The only two that have been able to do it in the last 80 years are Clinton and Reagan. The Republican field does not have a Clinton or Reagan.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,514
    Thanks Received:
    8,157
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,136
    I'd say there is a 50-50 chance.
     
  9. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,514
    Thanks Received:
    8,157
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,136
    Oh and I noticed you left out Ford's relection bid.
     
  10. ShaklesOfBigGov
    Offline

    ShaklesOfBigGov Restore the Republic

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,209
    Thanks Received:
    611
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Near Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +1,309
    Clinton is a Democrat, not a Republican. The state of the economy will be the basis on who wins the election in 2012. History has shown President Carter had lost re-election due to: unemployment, inflation, the hostage crisis in Iran, and the rising prices of oil. If Obama can't control his spending inflation is soon to follow, not to mention seeing a significant drop in the unemployment rate.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2011

Share This Page