Posted on 06/21/2012 10:17:20 AM PDT by kingattax
We have grown unaccustomed to presidential landslides. The three most lopsided presidential races since 1988 fell short of the conventional definition of a landslide, which would be a ten-point difference in the popular vote between the winner of the election and the next-closest candidate. Obama in 2008 beat McCain by seven points and carried 28 states.
Clinton in 1996 beat Dole by eight points (although Clinton did not even get a majority of the popular vote) and carried 31 states. George H. Bush had a seven-point advantage over Dukakis in 1988 and carried 40 states. A quick perusal of the electoral maps in each race shows a closely divided nation and no real mandate for the victorious candidate.
But that landslide drought could end this November. Economic conditions produce landslides -- prosperity propelled Reagan and Eisenhower, for example, to huge re-election wins in 1984 and 1956. Economic distress affects voters even more.
Only once has a president persuaded Americans to re-elect him in grim economic times: FDR in his 1936 landslide re-election.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
You are totally uninformed and out of the loop. I never said Palin would be the candidate ~ just simply isn’t true.
Obama certainly got a bump, but we took a beating with a candidate who couldn't pull the party base.
We start this one down 10 million votes, and we'll probably lose another 5 million Republicans just because we have a duodecadinal decline!
The GOP-e has professional analysts who can look at this material ~ but they appear to not have bothered.
I fear they know we are going to lose just about as bad last time, but they have this firm commitment with Mitt Romney to bring around his rich friend and pay off party debts and obligations.
Winners don't have to do that ~ the money boys show up when you win. If you lose again they just don't show up.
So when one of their paid lackeys comes in here, or some other site, and tells me it's my patriotic duty to vote for Romney I simply have to counsel that with their quite obviously cynical attitude toward the whole electoral process. They obviously don't believe in it.
I just think it is Summer and polls are only taken seriously when it suits us. I don’t believe for one minute it is going to be a blow out. I think it will come down to Colorado and the reason for this is because the STUPID GOPe picked a crappy candidate for us to vote for. It is going to be VERY hard for me to vote for this liberal Republican and if you think I am alone you shouldn’t. Do I hope Romney or Obama win????? No I don’t. I think they both are horrible and basically the same in beliefs.
I repeat my wager. Say, $50 to FR?
I don’t bet.
I don’t disagree with a lot of what you’ve said however elections, as you are aware, are not held in a vacuum. To put the last election in context, think only of two things: the dramatic stock market plunges in Sept-Oct 2008, and John McCain saying “I am suspending my campaign...”
That explains that 10 MM vote gap better than anything else.
Check out coal companies. All the mines closing. Before it was campaign rhetoric. Now its reality.
The "wrong answer" is to cater to illegal aliens when you have a continuing disastrous economic condition.
I don't think Romney thinks well.
Some political consultant are you!
If you want a third party to defeat Obama, don't go for the Losertarians. Go for somebody responsible, like, say, Nalph Raider!
I'm 1000% for Mittens! But, if Newt or Dr Paul were to pull a rabbit out of the hat and find a way to pull an upset in Tampa, I'd sign on in a heartbeat!
The bottom line is, ABO. Anybody who fails to support the ultimate GOP nominee is a TRAITOR!
Those states need to be cut off until their voters hit bottom and renege on the obligations to which their elected politicians committed them in the past.
Nice dodge.
Don't expect any real refutation. You'll just get "They love drugs!"
With close to 47% of the voters on the public dole as public employees or receivng gubmint checks, I think they understand the magnitude of losing their free ride as well, and so the results will not be the landslide you want it to be. Those receiving gubmint checks could care less about losing 60% of the national wealth. They are in it for themselves. You give them far more credit than they deserve.
I hope the numbers are significant in our favor. We have two levels of scumbagness to overcome: the bloodsuckers themselves need to turn around and vote GOP (oh yeh, right), and the congresssuckers who represent them need to cross the line and vote GOP. That would be called a miracle.
I assume you are referring to Clinton's re-election after losing the House.
I agree.
Clinton pivoted to the right following that defeat ("The Era of Big Government is over").
Obama has doubled down on his progressive policies, going further left toward an expansion of governmental power, seated in the Executive. Last week's pronouncement on immigration is an example.
This leftward drift may please his base, but is isolating him from the rest of the country, which I still believe is oriented center-right.
And then there is the economy.
DazRite!
Actually, I was referring to Obama’s 43% bottom some time ago-—that he wouldn’t rebound from this one.
Well, no, they also want sweeping economic liberty as spelled out in the portion of the LP platform I posted.
In light of that post, do you agree that you were incorrect in saying “the liberaltarians are just as liberal as any dem”?
I think it's closer to the truth to say that anybody who votes for a liberal is a TRAITOR.
At this point, only a resurgent economy can lift him.
Time for that is growing increasingly short.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.