Posted on 10/27/2011 7:31:00 PM PDT by bobjam
In 1936, Franklin Delano Roosevelt defeated Alfred Landon by an electoral vote of 523 to 8. This was the only contested election in which the major losing candidate received fewer than 10 votes (1788, 1792 and 1820 were uncontested). The landslide came on the heels of what appeared to be an economic recovery. Unemployment fell, productivity rose; people believed the New Deal really worked and they rewarded FDR accordingly. Shortly into the second term did the ugly truth reveal itself. The so-called recovery had been built entirely on government spending. Massive borrowing and government make-work projects put money in enough people's pockets that the economy grew. FDR, who always thought of himself as a fiscal conservative, began rolling back the WPA and other spending programs. When that happened, the economy collapsed. This was the second dip of the Great Depression, and it sent FDR into his own personal depression. The truth was that the so-called recovery that had propelled FDR to his historic landslide win in 1936 was built entirely on government spending. The economy was still on life support and the New Deal policies had only made recovery harder.
Why is this relevant? It's relevant because we are going to see it again in the coming months. The signs are there: a strong month for the Dow, 2.5% growth in the third quarter, a decline in unemployment, a slowdown in foreclosures. These trends, if sustained, will make Obama look like a genius come next June. But, like the FDR recovery of 1935 and 1936, the Obama recovery of 2012 will be based entirely on government hiring, government borrowing and government spending. The media will proclaim the Obama Recovery and compare him to Reagan with the GOP and Cain's 9-9-9 plan playing the part of Mondale. Will the voters fall for it? Yes. Will the GOP be savvy enough to ask where the private sector went? Maybe. Will the RNC have the guts to harp on the real unemployment number- the one that accounts for the underemployed and those who have given up? No.
We're living in a Golden Age, and Obama gets most of the credit.
Many people who foolishly voted to reelect FDR came to rue that decision. The misery that followed was unbelievable and was ended only when FDR died.
And, too, rioting youth don't make for a very productive workforce.
Economy growing my @ss. It is all smoke and mirrors. One quarter does not make a trend, and changing the criteria to end up with numbers you like, doesn’t make for a reassuring story.
And then in 1940, he beat Wilkie 449-82. FDR was the Babe Ruth of electoral politics, and according to H.L. Mencken, one of the greatest demagogues in world history.
But you are right. If the economy looks like it's coming back next year, and if the GOP nominates a guy promising to raise taxes on middle income and low income people, Obama will win.
I was just thinking today about all the “good economic news” that the LSM was pushing on the radio.
Was this article written before or after the 2.5% GDP announcement for last quarter?
FDR owned the airwaves, in a matter of speaking.
Having said the above, your scenario is possible. BHO still has a very loyal press, although they don’t have an iron fist control over the flow of information, anymore
“But you are right. If the economy looks like it’s coming back next year, and if the GOP nominates a guy promising to raise taxes on middle income and low income people, Obama will win.”
Which is why the grassroots conservatives should concentrate their efforts on winning the Senate and gaining more seats in the House in 2012. And on state races. Even Roosevelt could not have gotten away with his crap if he had not had the House and the Senate.
That is correct.
Radio was the internet of that age, and the regulations to control it better came during the depression. Food for thought, eh?
Actually, because of Republican control of the House, Obama is not likely to get much in the way of additional stimulus.
The economy may bounce back some only because it is impossible to keep it down forever. Companies have now factored in Obamacare and have been doing reasonably well, so there is a good chance we will see a rebound. It won’t be great, but I’d anticipate slow to moderate growth and the unemployment rate to begin ticking down. It will help Hussein and the media will declare happy days are here again, but I don’t think the economy will grow very rapidly. Looks to me like GDP growth of around 2-3% through next year and an unemployment rate of around 8% by November 2012. Europe could still go into the toilet which would change the dynamic, but it is clear they are going to kick the can down the road for as long as possible which could buy them a couple more years.
It is going to be a close election. All the dreamers on here saying otherwise are living in fantasy land.
Wrongo.
William Howard Taft, the sitting President of the United States, garnered a paltry eight electoral votes in the 1912 presidential election.
Taft won Utah (4 votes) and Vermont (4 votes).
Film at 11. [tape delayed to 11:35]
Fortunately, Obama can't run for a third term unlike FDR. Unfortunately, more 5 years of Obama will truly "fundamentally transform" this nation.
That was because Wilke was another FDR ‘light’
And we can thank Teddy Roosevelt for his 3rd Party which allowed Wilson to be elected and get us into WW1.
Someone needs to remove that guy's head from Mt. Rushmore.
In 1938 the New Deal was offically dead when the GOP had huge wins in the congressional elections over New Dealers.
FDR turned his attention to foreign affairs.
In 1912 Taft won only 8 votes. But in that year Thoedore Roosevelt was the major losing candidate. He received 88 votes to Wilson’s 435.
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.