The historical trend I

[True Federalist]

I still maintain that if Perot had not entered the race, Bush could have kept those doubts about Clinton uppermost in the public mind.

Ok, but the fact that you have to give him states that Dukakis won with 51% and 55% just to barely nudge him past 270 shows how difficult a case this is to make.

Your point is well made.

What you fail to understand is that Ernest automatically disagrees with any point I make.

What you fail to realize I made this point in the other thread well before you chimed in.  Don't flatter yourself CARL.  The opinions I hold are not determined in the slightest by yours.

[Vosem]

every President initially elected to that office and subsequently renominated and defeated has achieved a smaller percentage of the popular vote than in the initial election.

It would be kind of hard to be defeated for reelection with a higher percentage of the vote than the one that elected you, unless you were initially elected with a low plurality.

I'm pretty sure polling in 1995, before the government shutdown, showed Clinton doing exactly that.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I still maintain that if Perot had not entered the race, Bush could have kept those doubts about Clinton uppermost in the public mind.

Ok, but the fact that you have to give him states that Dukakis won with 51% and 55% just to barely nudge him past 270 shows how difficult a case this is to make.

Your point is well made.

What you fail to understand is that Ernest automatically disagrees with any point I make.

What you fail to realize I made this point in the other thread well before you chimed in.  Don't flatter yourself CARL.  The opinions I hold are not determined in the slightest by yours.

First, I started this thread, and as such didn't just "chime in,"

Second, I pointed out that your allegation that Presidents who did receive a larger percentage of the popular vote DID (in the case of Bush I) fail reelection contrary to your assertion.

Here is the exact quote:

"As I mentioned in the other thread, the Presidents who ran and lost their reelection all had a smaller margin of victory in their first election than Obama did."

Party               2008          1988

Democrat       45.56           52.87
Republican     53.37           45.60

Difference        7.72            7.27

So, are you using some kind of 'new math'?

[True Federalist]

What you fail to understand is that Ernest automatically disagrees with any point I make.

What you fail to realize I made this point in the other thread well before you chimed in.  Don't flatter yourself CARL.  The opinions I hold are not determined in the slightest by yours.

First, I started this thread, and as such didn't just "chime in,"

There was another thread on this same subject on another board a couple days before you started.  I didn't bother to recheck what I'd already written there since to me it wasn't significant enough to worry about.  If I had, I'd have been more precise, but I still stand by what I said in that earlier thread: "Perot's third party played a significant factor is Bush 41's failure to be reelected."

Let's take a good look at the failures.

1988: 53-46
1992: 37-43-19

The Democratic share went down from 1988 to 1992.  Perot's third party played a significant factor is Bush 41's failure to be reelected.

1976: 50-48
1980: 41-50-6

While Reagan won outright in 1980, Carter's margin of victory in 1976 was so small, that any decline was likely going to be fatal, whereas Obama's 53-46 result gives him a cushion that Peanuthead didn't have.

1928: 58-41
1932: 40-57

Having the Great Depression starting on your watch will do that.  If the bubble had waited another year to burst, Obama would be a certain one-termer thanks to the Great Recession, but that's not what happened.

1908: 52-43
1912: 23-42-27

As with the 1988-1992 case, we have a third party option upsetting the results and the winner getting less of the vote than his party did four years earlier.

1884: 48.9-48.3
1888: 48.7-47.8
1892: 46.0-43.0-8.5

Altho Cleveland lost round 2, it was because of the quirks of the electoral college.  He actually increased his popular vote margin of victory in 1888 over 1884.

1836: 51-49
1840: 47-53

As with Carter fourteen decades lower, Van Buren didn't have much of a margin, so pretty much any bump down was going to defeat him.


Anyway, because Obama has a larger margin to work with and no significant third party to deal with,  if he wins with a lower share of the PV this time, it might be novel, but it won't be noteworthy.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Are you unable to comprehend simple English?

Bush I had a larger margin in 1988 than Obama did in 2008.  So, what's with your assertion:

"Anyway, because Obama has a larger margin to work with"?

[True Federalist]

Bush I had a larger margin in 1988 than Obama did in 2008.  So, what's with your assertion:

"Anyway, because Obama has a larger margin to work with"?

He has a larger margin than usual for those who lose reelection without third party assistance.  The only one who has lost in two party return matchup with a larger margin was Hoover, and there is the significant difference between Hoover and Obama is that Hoover could not place any of the blame for the economic downturn on the previous administration (indeed, he had been part of that administration).  There all sorts of statistically insignificant factoids one can distill from such a small dataset as presidential reelection attempts.  By and large, those factoids are only useful for writing trivia questions.