Over the past couple of weeks I've heard a lot of mouths and talking heads tell us why it is President Obama is going down to defeat, or why he is going to win a landslide. I've heard just about everything, but one: Historical Precedence.
Going to Wiki-Pedia (that bastion of ever accuracy) to do my research, I found a couple of interesting patterns. The first one I don't think applies, but I want to waste the space. Today's two dominant parties each had half of the 1800's. The Democratic-Republican Party and Democratic Party had total domination from 1800 to 1840. Then it switched back and forth with the Whig Party until 1860. Then the Republican Party had an iron fisted lock on the presidency through 1912.
Now we're in the 20th Century. There's a pattern that tells me President Obama stands a very good chance of being president through 2016. That is: Only one incumbent president was defeated for re-election in the middle of his party's eight year run in the White House.
What about G.H. Bush? What about Herbert Hoover? What about so-and-so?
Let's take a look. The first incumbent to be defeated was Howard Taft. He was defeated at the end of his party's 16 year run. From William McKinley to Theodore Roosevelt to Howard Taft. Then Herbert Hoover lost after twelve years. Of course George H. Bush after the same amount of time.
I also noticed something else: Only one president to ascend from being vice-president was defeated in trying for his own term. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson all became president after the death of the previous president. Then they all won election to their own term. Each opted not to run again again for a second full term.
Gerald Ford was the only president in the 20th Century to be defeated for election after serving out another president's term. He in turn would be defeated by the guy making my original point.
Jimmy Carter. The only incumbent president to be defeated for re-election in the middle of his part's eight year run in the White House. You had eight years of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford before him. Then twelve years of Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush.
Total that's an awesome historical precedence for anybody challenging President Obama in 2012.
2012!
Screw that! I'm more worried about 2010. What movie should I watch tonight?
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World
or
The Expenables?
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
President Obama will be re-elected, but not because of patterns. The GOP is filled with total nutballs and has veered hard to the far right. Their base is made up of teabaggers er "Tea Party" members. The Tea Party only has an 18% approval rating. This occurred when people actually realize the politics that Tea Party members hold.
This base elected horrible politicians in 2010. They literally put your crazy asshole Republican neighbor in office. These people almost caused the country to default and they did cause a downgrade.
The presidential candidates from the GOP are equally horrible. They are locked into a total pissing contest, throwing this base as much redmeat as possible. This and the statements they have made in the past will come back to haunt them. The Republican base is way too conservative even for moderate Republicans. Jon Huntsman, the only moderate Republican in the race also has the lowest approval rating.
The majority of the people do not support the position of these crazy Republicans. You have members of the GOP admitting that their only priority is to prevent our President from re-election. They are protecting the ultra wealthy and corporations. Preventing tax increases on them, while calling for massive cuts to social security and Medicaid and Medicare. This is insane and most people see it.
President Obama has not started campaigning (which he is very good at), but appears ready to force the Republicans to take some very tough votes. Things like the payroll tax cut and soon his job creation bill. He appears to have gotten his game back and is on point.
People realize that the job creators are actually consumers like you and I. They are not the ultra-rich. They have seen several examples of these ultra-rich receiving billions from the Government and just pocketing it. We have tried cutting taxes on the rich and allowing Corporations to pay no taxes for years in an effort to spur jobs. We also have examples of this with Hoover in the 1920s and the 1890s to 1900. It doesn't work. The Republicans are working hard to keep this myth alive. It is clear that they are bought off. Democrats are not much better, but their is hope with them.
Looks as if our prediction came true. However we took two very different roads to arrive at the same conclusion. My path went through history books, almanacs, that little ruler with pictures of the presidents on it, and yes, Wikipedia. We all joke about Wikipedia's accuracy, but hey, at least it got Grover Cleveland's political affiliation correct.
I'm not going to spend time correcting all the mistakes the caller made, and I'm not going to joke about reaching up were the sun doesn't shine to find facts. Instead I'll concentrate on the one fact that is stated: corporations pay no taxes.
This is not conspiracy, this not supposition, this isn't guessing, this is the truth. Corporations pay no taxes. Microsoft, KBR, Solyndra et al don't pay taxes.
WE DO! You heard me right. You, me, the caller, all of us. Ever wonder why a pizza has to cost over ten dollars? One of the reasons is that Pizza Hut, Domino's, and Papa Shango's include the taxes they pay into the price of the pie.
I think I'll stop there. I don't want to get into a discussion on macro-economics.
In conclusion I say this: You must give credit where due: Mitt Romney got more votes than John McCain. President Obama is the second president to win re-election with many fewer votes than his previous election.
Post a Comment