The Economist: Republican Primary Candidates 2012

[^_^ 5,021]

http://www.economist.com/node/18284021

[mawilson 2,133]

Good summary.

In other words, Obama will be re-elected.

[웃 910]

Good summary.

In other words, Obama will be re-elected.

Obama won because we had 8 years of Bush. Also, he went up against a 70-something rich old man that looked like he was 80-something.

2008 wasn't a landslide. Obama won 52% to 46%.

If you look at the results in the 2010 election the worst case scenario for a Repuke-lickin (yes I made that up just now) is a a close race.

52 to 46 when Obama was so hyped up and commentators were getting shivers through their spines, tingles up their legs, fainting at his events, praising him, crying when they saw him, comparing him to Jesus/God, etc.

Only guarantee is it will be a lot closer of a race in 2012 than it was in 2008

[^_^ 5,021]

2008 wasn't a landslide. Obama won 52% to 46%.

53-46, according to CNN.

That's a margin of 7%. So when is the last time a non-incumbent President won with a margin larger than 7%?

GWB won in 2004 with a margin of 3%.

GWB won in 2000 with a margin of one old jewish voter in dade county.

Bill Clinton won two three-way races - 1992 and 1996. In 1992, he actually got fewer popular votes than GHWB and Perot combined - by a margin of 13%. In 1996, he got more than GHWB+Perot by one-tenth of a percent.

GHWB beat Dukakis in 1988 by 8%.

So there you have it. It hasn't happened since 1988.

(1988-2004 data from http://www.usconstitution.net/elections.html)

[웃 910]

So there you have it. It hasn't happened since 1988.

So it happened with Bush Sr. then didn't happen with Clinton or Bush Jr and then happened again with Obama.

[mawilson 2,133]

2008 wasn't a landslide. Obama won 52% to 46%.

Looks like a landslide to me.

Edited March 5, 2011 by mawilson

[웃 910]

2008 wasn't a landslide. Obama won 52% to 46%.

Looks like a landslide to me.

.6/10 a landslide

You might want to recheck your definition of a landslide:

United States

Presidential

Presidential elections in the United States are indirect; they are not determined by the "popular vote", but by the Electoral College. Each state is allocated as many "electors" as it has Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress, and, at present, all states but Nebraska and Maine hold a "winner take all" vote, in which the winner of the popular vote in a state wins all electoral votes the state is eligible to cast (Nebraska and Maine give two electoral votes to the winner of the state and one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district within the state.).

For this reason, many presidential victories appear to be huge landslide victories when examining the electoral vote, but much less so when examining the popular vote; for example, in the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan won 90.9% of the electoral vote but 50.7% of the popular vote to Jimmy Carter's 41.0%.

Popular votes

• Lyndon Johnson's 61.1% to Barry Goldwater's 38.5% in the 1964 presidential election
• Franklin D. Roosevelt's 60.8% to Alf Landon's 36.5% in the 1936 presidential election
• Richard Nixon's 60.7% to George McGovern's 37.5% in the 1972 presidential election
• Warren Harding's 60.3% to James M. Cox's 34.1% in the 1920 presidential election
• Ronald Reagan's 58.8% to Walter Mondale's 40.6% in the 1984 presidential election
• Theodore Roosevelt's 56.4% to Alton B. Parker's 37.6% in the 1904 presidential election

Electoral votes

• James Monroe's 231 electoral votes to John Quincy Adams's 1 electoral vote in 1820. (99.1% margin)
• Franklin D. Roosevelt's 523 electoral votes to Alf Landon's 8 electoral votes in 1936. (97% margin)
• Richard Nixon's 520 electoral votes to George McGovern's 17 electoral votes and John Hospers's 1 in 1972. (93.3% margin)
• Ronald Reagan's 525 electoral votes to Walter Mondale's 13 electoral votes in 1984. (95.2% margin)

Edited March 5, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[^_^ 5,021]

So it happened with Bush Sr. then didn't happen with Clinton or Bush Jr and then happened again with Obama.

Yes. Whether we call it a landslide or not is simply not important to me. But it is important to recognize that a margin of that size is not the norm anymore.

[웃 910]

Yes. Whether we call it a landslide or not is simply not important to me. But it is important to recognize that a margin of that size is not the norm anymore.

He did better compared to the last 2 presidents. He did worse than GHWB. He did worse than Reagan.

Ronald Reagan's 58.8% to Walter Mondale's 40.6% in the 1984 presidential election

So of the last 4 presidents Obama did better than 2 and worse than 2.

We've only got 4 presidents going back 30 years so it is hard to say what is and what isn't the norm.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yes. Whether we call it a landslide or not is simply not important to me. But it is important to recognize that a margin of that size is not the norm anymore.

You do realize, that by saying that, you almost certainly guarantee a landslide for the winner of 2012.

[^_^ 5,021]

You do realize, that by saying that, you almost certainly guarantee a landslide for the winner of 2012.

Yeap. Wow, landslide!

[웃 910]

1 looks like a dead heat. 1 looks like a landslide. Which one is which?

Edited March 5, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Both were slaughters where it matters: In the Electoral College Bowl.

[mawilson 2,133]

You do realize, that by saying that, you almost certainly guarantee a landslide for the winner of 2012.

Really? Our saying stuff here affects the outcome of 2012? Cool!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Newt pros: took on Clinton, cons: lost

All in all, it's looking pretty pathetic on the GOP side.