Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

To: garjog
From the article:

"The top-tier candidates stayed home. They wouldn't do it. He did."

I'd like to know who WSJ thinks the "top-tier" are. I haven't heard too many people upset over someone not running except for Sarah Palin and I'm pretty sure that's not who the WSJ has in mind.

2 posted on 12/15/2011 11:15:53 PM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Rashputin
Difficult to defeat a sitting president? What rubbish. Look at the past 50 years. When a sitting president ran for re-election:

1964 -- Johnson reelected.
1968 -- Johnson refused to run.
1972 -- Nixon reelected.
1976 -- Ford lost reelection.
1980 -- Carter lost reelection.
1984 -- Reagan reelected.
1992 -- GHW Bush lost reelection.
1996 -- Clinton reelected.
2004 -- GW Bush reelected.

In short, discounting the extraordinary circumstance of 1964 (the American public will never voluntarily accept 3 different presidents in 13 months), the historical record shows roughly 4-to-3 odds in favour of a sitting president being reelected.

And, one might note that NO sitting president since FDR has ever been reelected with the real unemployment rate (as opposed to the imaginary figure trumpeted without end by the Dep't of Labor) above 7.5%, let alone 16.1% as now.

As the well-known Instapundit has observed on numerous occasions: "A syphilitic camel would beat Obama in 2012, assuming that the camel is at least 35 years old."

4 posted on 12/16/2011 3:43:54 AM PST by SAJ (What is the next tagline some overweening mod will censor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson