Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #21
The republican party is dirty from top to bottom.
Your making a BIG mistake Toro
Your making a BIG mistake Toro
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Also enjoy the poll...
One huge advantage incumbants enjoy. If you voted for them to start with, you usually won't admit you made a mistake, even to yourself in the privacy of a voting booth. So not surprisingly, of the seven incumbants who have stood for re-election since WWII, five actually increased their vote totals.
Eisenhower- 33 million in 1952, 35 million in 1956.
Nixon- 31 million in 1968, 46 million in 1972
Reagan 44 million in 1980, 54 million in 1984
Clinton - 45 million in 1992, 47 million in 1996
Bush-43- 50 million in 2000, 62 million in 2004
For purposes of this discussion, Truman, Johnson and Ford don't count as "incumbants", because they were filling out someone else's term.
"But, Joe," you ask, "what about the two guys who got LESS votes?" Ah, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Carter got 40 million in 1976, when he barely edged out Jerry Ford's 39 million. In 1980 he got 35 million. Reagan got 5 million more than Ford, but Anderson got 6 million votes. More than likely, most of those 6 million Anderson voters came out of the folks who voted for Carter four years earlier.
Bush the Elder got 48 million in 1988, but a mere 39 million in 1992. Clinton did improve his vote total over Dukakis by 3 million votes, but the real bleeding loss was the 19 million who voted for H. Ross Perot.
In short, the presense of third party candidates enabled those people to admit they had made a mistake without forcing them to vote for the opposition party.
Incidently, didn't vote for Obama, probably won't vote for him next time. (Although if the GOP nominates Romney, I won't vote GOP, either.) But I do find this interesting.
To read more...
President Elect
That's an interesting analysis.
The one big, big caveat is that the winners who increased their vote total did so during good or significantly improving economic times.
Perhaps a better analogy is 1932, when FDR blew Hoover out of the water. The economy isn't as bad today as it was in 1932, and we are slowly improving whereas the economy was still sinking during the voting in November 1932, but the causes of the economic mess today are more similar to the 1930s than to any other time since.
Also, I have heard pollsters say over the years that the best indicator for getting rid of incumbents in all elections is the "Right track/wrong track" poll, where they ask Americans if the country is on the right or wrong track. I can't confirm that, but it supposedly is a better indicator than any other polling question, such as whether you approve of his performance or like the guy. If this is true, then Obama is in deep trouble because the tilt to the "Wrong track" has been consistently running between -40 and -50, which is as lopsided as it has ever been.
Making an even BIGGER mistake (like voting for any7 of the current GOPers) won't abrogate the mistake made by voting for Obama.
What the GOP partisans are trying to convince people to do is a classic example of overcorrecting.
When you're swerving left and about to go off the road, overcorrecting with a hard right is no solution, either.
Why would ANYONE want more of what the republicans have delivered for decades now?
wealth consolidation, war and economic disastor is their plan.
Exactly. My vote for Obama was not a mistake given that the alternative could have made Sarah Palin president.it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.
and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.
so there ya go.
And there is no one currently trying for the Republican nomination that would be an improvement on Obama.
Why would ANYONE want more of what the republicans have delivered for decades now?
wealth consolidation, war and economic disastor is their plan.
Making an even BIGGER mistake (like voting for any7 of the current GOPers) won't abrogate the mistake made by voting for Obama.
What the GOP partisans are trying to convince people to do is a classic example of overcorrecting.
When you're swerving left and about to go off the road, overcorrecting with a hard right is no solution, either.
Not really. Ike, Nixon and Bush-43 actually had HIGHER unemployment when they stood for re-election than they did when they won the first time.
Yes, it was. But here's the catch. Hoover caught holy hell because he was part of the party that really encouraged the shenannigans. (The voters punished the GOP for FOUR straight cycles, to the point where they had lost 80% of their offices by 1936.) People saw the GOP as being in bed with the Wall Street types who crashed the economy. So even though the economy had only improved marginally in FDR's first term, he too was able to increase his margin in 1936.
That might be a saving grace for the GOP, but I wouldn't count on it. Again, I'm just not seeing a whole lot of Obama voters telling me they'd do anything different this time.
Making an even BIGGER mistake (like voting for any7 of the current GOPers) won't abrogate the mistake made by voting for Obama.
What the GOP partisans are trying to convince people to do is a classic example of overcorrecting.
When you're swerving left and about to go off the road, overcorrecting with a hard right is no solution, either.
Since when is voting for Romney overcorrecting with a "hard right", Ed? If you think Mitt Romney is a hard right candidate then I won't even waste my time debating politics with you.
Making an even BIGGER mistake (like voting for any7 of the current GOPers) won't abrogate the mistake made by voting for Obama.
What the GOP partisans are trying to convince people to do is a classic example of overcorrecting.
When you're swerving left and about to go off the road, overcorrecting with a hard right is no solution, either.
Since when is voting for Romney overcorrecting with a "hard right", Ed? If you think Mitt Romney is a hard right candidate then I won't even waste my time debating politics with you.
Let's just say that Romney is a leaning harder right candidate than Obama, shall we?
But the caveot is who do the people blame for the wrong track.
take a look at congressional approval
Making an even BIGGER mistake (like voting for any7 of the current GOPers) won't abrogate the mistake made by voting for Obama.
What the GOP partisans are trying to convince people to do is a classic example of overcorrecting.
When you're swerving left and about to go off the road, overcorrecting with a hard right is no solution, either.
Since when is voting for Romney overcorrecting with a "hard right", Ed? If you think Mitt Romney is a hard right candidate then I won't even waste my time debating politics with you.
Let's just say that Romney is a leaning harder right candidate than Obama, shall we?
Not really. Ike, Nixon and Bush-43 actually had HIGHER unemployment when they stood for re-election than they did when they won the first time.
The obvious differences were that the unemployment rate was falling into the election (1972 and 2004) and/or low, with the highest rate being 5.6% in 1972 while it was 5.5% in 2004 and 4.1% in 1956; and that we were fighting wars in 1972 and 2004 and the economy wasn't front and center.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
This is the worst recession since the Depression. The only thing that matters is the economy. And though it is improving, there are still too many unemployed.
Yes, it was. But here's the catch. Hoover caught holy hell because he was part of the party that really encouraged the shenannigans. (The voters punished the GOP for FOUR straight cycles, to the point where they had lost 80% of their offices by 1936.) People saw the GOP as being in bed with the Wall Street types who crashed the economy. So even though the economy had only improved marginally in FDR's first term, he too was able to increase his margin in 1936.
The catch is that the 1932 election was in the midst of the deepest depression in generations. That's why the Republicans lost badly.
That might be a saving grace for the GOP, but I wouldn't count on it. Again, I'm just not seeing a whole lot of Obama voters telling me they'd do anything different this time.
The difference is that in 2010, it was as much a vote against Obama as it was for the Republicans. Many people were absolutely furious then. I don't see why they would switch back.