US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

[Strongbow]

Democrats Face Historic Voter Hurdle

Analysis By Scott Rasmussen

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Much has been made this year about how the fundamentals favor the Democrats. An unpopular Republican president, a war that has dragged on beyond the limits of public tolerance, a declining number of people identifying as Republicans and a worrisome economy all set the stage for the Democrats to reclaim the White House.

While citing these factors, Rasmussen Reports and many others have not often pointed out another fundamental—the difficulty Democrats have in attracting a majority of the popular vote.

Since 1860, the year that Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican president, only three Democrats have won the White House with a majority of the popular vote. Each of the three—Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter—were aided by extraordinary circumstances.

Roosevelt was elected during the depths of the Great Depression. Johnson was elected less than a year after he assumed the presidency following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Carter was elected in the immediate aftermath of Watergate, a time that makes even the current challenges faced by the Republican Party seem tame by comparison.

For a while, it appeared to many that Barack Obama might be able to expand the traditional limits of Democratic appeal and break through the 50% ceiling. But despite all the polling done by Rasmussen Reports and others this season, he has not yet broken through that barrier.

Still, for much of the year, it seemed like a Democrat winning 49% or 50% of the vote should be able to capture the White House. After all, the GOP was fragmented and less than thrilled with their nominee. So, if a Ron Paul or a Bob Barr picked up two or three percent of the vote, many expected that McCain would be doomed.

Now, with the addition of Alaska's conservative governor, Sarah Palin, to the ticket, McCain has succeeded in uniting his party and ramping up its enthusiasm. In fact, it now seems that Hillary Clinton, an unsuccessful contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, might drain a point or so of support from Obama. That appears to be as likely as Libertarian Party candidate Barr grabbing a few votes from McCain.

If the Democrats have an historic ceiling around 50% and the GOP is united, those fundamentals suggest a toss-up, and that’s what we have in the country today. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows McCain and Obama in a very competitive race heading into the debate phase of the campaign.

Rasmussen Reports: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

There have only been a total of 6 Democratic Presidents to ever be elected President while winning 50% or more of the popular vote, in US history. They are:

Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
Franklin Pierce
Franklin Roosevelt
Lyndon Johnson
Jimmy Carter


In 2004, George Bush was re-elected President of the United States winning 50.73% of the popular vote. There are only two Democratic Presidents that have ever been re-elected President winning 50% or more of the popular vote, Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt.

[deep]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Rasmussen Reports: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

There have only been a total of 6 Democratic Presidents to ever be elected President while winning 50% or more of the popular vote, in US history. They are:

Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
Franklin Pierce
Franklin Roosevelt
Lyndon Johnson
Jimmy Carter


In 2004, George Bush was re-elected President of the United States winning 50.73% of the popular vote. There are only two Democratic Presidents that have ever been re-elected President winning 50% or more of the popular vote, Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt.

Those stats don't say anything about the 2008. Anything before the 1964 is really pointless. If we could get African Americans and women to not be able to vote,
the GOP would get over 50%.



If you want to include everybody
then we should at least start with the Civil Rights act in 1964.

LBJ got 61 %

Has any Republican ever got 61% ?

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by deep

Those stats don't say anything about the 2008. Anything before the 1964 is really pointless. If we could get African Americans and women to not be able to vote,
the GOP would get over 50%.



If you want to include everybody
then we should at least start with the Civil Rights act in 1964.

LBJ got 61 %

Has any Republican ever got 61% ?

Fine, lets just do 1964 and up. Makes the Republicans and what George Bush did in 2004 look even better.

There have only been 3 Democratic Presidents elected to office since 1964. Only one was re-elected President. In only 2 of the 4 elections that they won, were they able to get 50% or more of the popular vote. With the exception of 1968 and 2000, every Republican elected to President since 1964 has received 50% or more of the popular vote.

There has not been a single Democrat since 1964 to be re-elected with 50% or more of the vote like George Bush was in 2004.


LBJ has the largest popular vote percentage total in history at 61%. Nixon in 1972 was close though with 60.67%.

The greatest Electoral Landslide in history was Ronald Reagan's 1984 victory where he won 58% of the popular vote and won every state in the Union except Minnesota. He only lost that state by 3,000 votes.

[deep]

Yes but is we are merely stating facts here

It is a irrefutable fact that more Americans voted for John Kerry for President
than the number of Americans that voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984.

So, Reagan's 1984 landslide falls behind both Al Gore and John Kerry in number of votes.


More American went to the polls for Al Gore or John Kerry than for Reagan in a single election.

[Earnie Shavers]

Which brings you full circle back to the historical fact that still has the rest of the world outside the United States absolutely gobsmacked:

More people voted for George Bush in the 2004 election than for any other candidate in history.

We’re still all waiting for you to explain that one.

[Lila64]

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

Score a negative, lying, deceitful ad for Obama:

Political Punch

I bet his team was behind Palin's personal emails being hacked, too. For all those people in this forum who, somehow, have yet to believe that Obama has crossed the line, please defend this, both the ad and the emails.

The ad crosses the line. I find it disappointing, to say the least, but I can't say I'm terribly surprised. Remember, it's you that's been trying to paint those planning to vote for Obama as worshipers of He Who Can Do No Wrong. I know I've never made such claims.

There's a lot of people clamoring for Obama to "hit back hard" and if this is what they mean I hope he won't continue in that direction. It diminishes him (as it has diminished McCain) and it could prove harmful to him in a way that it isn't to McCain due to the "angry black man" thing that Irvine astutly pointed out.

I don't need to defend the e-mails because I don't think Obama's team was involved in that.

[maycocksean]

My name is Buster Taint Palin

[deep]

Originally Posted by Earnie Shavers

Which brings you full circle back to the historical fact that still has the rest of the world outside the United States absolutely gobsmacked:

More people voted for George Bush in the 2004 election than for any other candidate in history.

We’re still all waiting for you to explain that one.

W is actually one of the least popular U S Presidents ever.




The fact that more people voted for him than for any other candidate in history.
Is saying nothing more than the fact that in 2004 the country had a population or 300 million and there really was not a viable 3rd party candidate.

In 1964 when L B J got one of the highest percentages - 61.1%
the population was 192 million.


Each of Bill Clinton's elections had a viable 3rd candidate in Ross Perot.

Bill Clinton beat the GOP candidate by 9 %.

George Bush II only beat Kerry by 3 %.

1992 election results

Clinton 43 %
Bush 37.4 %
Perot 18.9 %

1996

Clinton 49.2 %
Dole 40.7 %
Perot 8.4 %

[Earnie Shavers]

He still should have been rolled by a record %.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

My name is Buster Taint Palin

And do you approve that message?

[hiphop]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

Credible feminist organizations have thrown their support to the Obama campaign.

The Associated Press: Women's rights groups endorse Obama for president

indeed

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

pragmatic flexibility

-- formerly known as flip-flopping

see also: indecisive, wishy-washy, without principles, opportunistic and pandering

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

-- formerly known as flip-flopping

see also: indecisive, wishy-washy, without principles, opportunistic and pandering

What, like McCain's tax plan, his born-again regulation of Wall Street philosophy?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Hopefully, the tide is turning back in Obama's direction...what was it Clinton said....'It's the economy, stupid'.

it does seem to be. the polls are slowly but surely moving back to Obama, and he seems to have found his groove on the stump with a particularly nice line about [paraphrased], "McCain says he's going to take on the old boys network; in the McCain campaign, they call "the old boys network" a staff meeting."

that's a memorable line that will stick.

and don't think that Tina Fey and Sarah Palin is going to go away any time soon. the ratings were boffo for SNL last week (despite that being the only tolerable skit). so expect much more.

seems like that ad is deceitful. though this is what the Democrats have been begging Obama to do for quite a while. no doubt the large amount of Latino voters in CO, NM, and especially NV were the targets for this ad.

and i agree with Utoo -- if there's a conspiracy behind Ms. Palin's Yahoo! account, i'd be more inclined to think that it was the McCain campaign itself trying to generate sympathy.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

-- formerly known as flip-flopping

see also: indecisive, wishy-washy, without principles, opportunistic and pandering

these are precisely the characteristics that would have prevented Iraq, Katrina, the decimation of the Justice Department, the wild expansion of executive powers, the erosion of our standing in the world, the deregulation of the markets to the extent that perhaps capitalism as we know it has collapsed ...

give me a flip-flopper any day over an incurious, proud-to-be-ignorant ideologue.

[Irvine511]

a senior moment for McCain?

During an interview in Miami earlier this week with Spanish-language station Union Radio, a reporter asked McCain whether, if elected, he would receive Zapatero in the White House. McCain answered, "Honestly, I have to analyze our relationships, situations, and priorities, but I can assure you that I will establish closer relationships with our friends, and I will stand up to those who want to harm the United States."

Ouch. The question about Zapatero, clearly framed by the reporter as a question about Spain, came after inquiries on Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba. As a result, much of the Spanish press has decided that the Republican candidate, who hails himself as the experienced foreign policy choice in this election, confused Spain — a NATO member and key ally in the fight against terrorism — with one of those troublesome Latin American states. That was certainly the interviewer's impression, for she followed up with a gentle reminder that Spain was a country in Europe. As Spanish newspaper El PaÃs put it, "In the best-case scenario, [his answer] demonstrates his ignorance with respect to Zapatero."

so does John McCain not know who the president of Spain is, or does he think Spain is a country in Latin America?

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by deep

Yes but is we are merely stating facts here

It is a irrefutable fact that more Americans voted for John Kerry for President
than the number of Americans that voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984.

So, Reagan's 1984 landslide falls behind both Al Gore and John Kerry in number of votes.


More American went to the polls for Al Gore or John Kerry than for Reagan in a single election.

Actually, a lot of this is incorrect. Lets take a look at the numbers.


number of people voting for Reagan in 1984: 54,455,472
number of people voting for Al Gore in 2000: 51,003,926
number of people voting for J. Kerry in 2004: 59,028,439
number of people voting for Johnson in 1964: 43,127,041

number of people voting for W in 2004: 62,040,610


Yes, John Kerry and George Bush in 2004 did receive more votes than Reagan did in 1984 if you just compare the nominal numbers. But if you adjust for the size of the population which was 235 million in 1984 VS. 295 million in 2004, then Reagan's 1984 victory is still out in front.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by deep

W is actually one of the least popular U S Presidents ever.


In 1964 when L B J got one of the highest percentages - 61.1%
the population was 192 million.

Sorry, but your definitely not one of the least popular Presidents ever when you get re-elected with over 50% of the popular vote. W got 50.73% of the popular vote in 2004.

There are only TWO democratic Presidents that have ever been re-elected with 50% or more of the popular vote, Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt. Without those two, the Democrats don't have anyone as popular and successful as W was in November 2004.

Yes, if you adjust for population, Johnson is ahead of W, but not by much and Johnson was not re-elected like W.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

a senior moment for McCain?




so does John McCain not know who the president of Spain is, or does he think Spain is a country in Latin America?

On Meet The Press, Joe Biden claimed that there were no Sunni's in Al Anbar Province. He later tried to correct himself by saying there were no Shia in Al Anbar province which is also incorrect.