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

[ElephantMcDonk]

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?

 

[Oddball]

I think it's still early 2011.

Check back with me after the nominating conventions.

 

[VaYank5150]

Plus....history had no Caribou Barbie!

 

[Claudette]

The encumbant always has the edge.

Nothing new there.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Unemployment stays high, economy continues to spiral, O loses. Reverse that scenario, O has a decent shot at winning.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

 

[ElephantMcDonk]

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.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'd say there is a 50-50 chance.

 

[Avatar4321]

Oh and I noticed you left out Ford's relection bid.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The encumbant always has the edge.

Nothing new there.

In Dear Leaders case, he'll get the the edge of the ax.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

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.

Sure to follow isnt the case. Inflation has already started

 

[Rozman]

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?

Are you implying the GOP will not have a candidate for the Presidential election.