The historical trend I

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The simple reason for this is the increase of the population in these times
with a growth rate of about 15 % in 4 years.

More like the growth over 10 years.  The 1808 election used the apportionment for the 1800 Census and the 1812 election used the apportionment for the 1810 Census.  For 1802-10, Representatives were apportioned on the basis of 1 per 33,000 while for 1812-20 Representatives were apportioned on the basis of 1 per 35,000.  The 1810 Census increased the number of Representatives by 39.  (1812 had 42 more electors than 1808 because the admission of Louisiana as a State added 1 Representative and 2 Senators.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

So, how do you explain the case of Bush I, who received 53.37% of the popular vote in 1988, but was defeated in 1992, while Obama received 52.87% of the popular vote in 2008?

Hmm...

Perot.  Factor him out of the race and H.W. at a minimum ekes out a narrow victory in a close contest. 

Bush/Quayle: 273
Clinton/Gore: 265

Obama won't be taking fire from two major opponents as H.W. did.  Further, to the degree third parties have an effect this year, it's more likely going to be Romney than Obama who is hurt.  Not that Obama can't lose, but it won't be unexpected if he wins.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Without Perot's attacks, Bush would not have been sub-40% in approvals.  Before Perot jumped into the race, Bush was leading Clinton in the polls, and without having to deal with Perot, his campaign could have maintained its focus on Clinton.  Instead, when Perot jumped in and led the race for a while with Clinton trailing in third, then for obvious reasons the Bush campaign had to pivot and focus on Perot and give Clinton the breathing space he needed to regroup.  Perot's peculiar personal charges against Bush also helped to ensure that when he lost support, his ex-supporters tended to go to Clinton instead of Bush.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Would it make you happier if I swapped out Michigan which Bush won in 1988 with 54% for Iowa and Wisconsin?  It wouldn't affect the EV total at all from the quick-and-dirty map I prepared using a uniform split of the Perot vote to get a rough tie in the PV for Bush and Clinton.  Plus there are several other States I gave to Clinton for which a case could be made that Bush would have kept from 1988 if Perot had not entered the race.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.