Obama: 1st President since Eisenhower to win 51% TWICE (vote, campaign, Reagan)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of it is just due to the fact that Obama didn't have to deal with a strong 3rd party candidate either time. Reagan got 50.7% in 1980, 58% in 1984. In 1980 he might have done a little better without ex-Republican John Anderson, who ran as an indy and drew 6.6% of the vote. Clinton also might have done it without the presence of Perot, who got 18.9% in 1992, and 8% in 1996. W Bush is really the only 2 term guy on that list who didn't get 51% and didn't have to deal with a 3rd party opponent.
The one thing I would admit is that Pres. Obama proved himself to be an impressive campaigner to get to 51%, considering the poor economy, and job approval numbers that were under 50% during most of 2010-2012.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,455,696 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
I'm not so sure how impressive of a stat this is.
Some of it is just due to the fact that Obama didn't have to deal with a strong 3rd party candidate either time. Reagan got 50.7% in 1980, 58% in 1984. In 1980 he might have done a little better without ex-Republican John Anderson, who ran as an indy and drew 6.6% of the vote. Clinton also might have done it without the presence of Perot, who got 18.9% in 1992, and 8% in 1996. W Bush is really the only 2 term guy on that list who didn't get 51% and didn't have to deal with a 3rd party opponent.
The one thing I would admit is that Pres. Obama proved himself to be an impressive campaigner to get to 51%, considering the poor economy, and job approval numbers that were under 50% during most of 2010-2012.
Which only further proves how little being a successful businessman (aka, the Romney narrative), applies to politics.
Which only further proves how little being a successful businessman (aka, the Romney narrative), applies to politics.
Agreed, these are two different skill-sets. If you look back at recent history, successful businessman have tended to fail in politics. Romney, Perot, and Gary Johnson were all successful in business but failed at politics. W Bush was a failure in business, but successful in politics. Clinton and Obama were successful in politics, but had zero business background or success.
I don't really think very many people pay much attention to these types of stats. Like mentioned, Reagan came close the first time (look at how many states he carried) and carried all but one state in 1984. A win is a win, regardless and that is all that really matters.
I don't really think very many people pay much attention to these types of stats. Like mentioned, Reagan came close the first time (look at how many states he carried) and carried all but one state in 1984. A win is a win, regardless and that is all that really matters.
...and Reagan was never a businessman. Just goes to show how different a good politician and a good businessman really are in their abilities and skills.
The Pentagon also learned the differences the hard way. The business paradigm was very popular among the top military leadership before the Viet Nam war, and proved to be a total failure. A good warrior is not a good businessman while in service.
But both politicians and warriors can become successful in the business world after they leave their first professions. Their previous experiences and developed skills do translate, but it's a one-way street, with service at one end and profit & loss at the other end.
...and Reagan was never a businessman. Just goes to show how different a good politician and a good businessman really are in their abilities and skills.
The Pentagon also learned the differences the hard way. The business paradigm was very popular among the top military leadership before the Viet Nam war, and proved to be a total failure. A good warrior is not a good businessman while in service.
But both politicians and warriors can become successful in the business world after they leave their first professions. Their previous experiences and developed skills do translate, but it's a one-way street, with service at one end and profit & loss at the other end.
That certainly is very true: my response had nothing to really do with the business issue, but more the posting about Obama's victory, which really means almost nothing and will be forgotten as fast as it was posted. That is probably why we have seen so few responses to the OP. 1/2 point here and there makes no difference unless it is the determining factor in a victory. If any of us wanted to take the time, we could show so and so won by thus and so or this time so and so won by 5% and last time 3. Do you get what I saying? I don't know how well a businessman would do as Pres, we haven't seen one in my lifetime...
Reagan, Bush won by much larger margins than that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama: 1st President since Eisenhower to win 51% TWICE
