The historical trend I

[CARLHAYDEN]

Since World War 2, every person elected President and subsequently reelected to that office has achieved a higher percentage of the vote than in the initial election whereas every President initially elected to that office and subsequently renominated and defeated has achieved a smaller percentage of the popular vote than in the initial election.  Here are some examples:

Candidate   Election        Reelection        Difference
                        Percentage

Bush II           47.87           50.73                  2.86
Clinton           43.01           49.23                  6.22
Reagan          50.75           58.77                  8.02
Nixon             43.42           60.67                17.25
Eisenhower   55.18           57.37                  2.19

Bush I           53.37           37.45               - 15.92   
Carter           50.08           41.01               -   9.07

So, will Obama receive a higher percentage of the vote in 2012 than in 2008?

Will Obama somehow win reelection with a reduced percentage of the popular vote, thereby bucking the history?

[CARLHAYDEN]

You do recognize that the three largest differences between popular vote percentages among reelected presidents cited in your table were largely caused by the presence of third party candidacies which did much to depress the vote percentage in the initial election, right?

So, everything is explained by third party candidates?

Hmm.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You do recognize that the three largest differences between popular vote percentages among reelected presidents cited in your table were largely caused by the presence of third party candidacies which did much to depress the vote percentage in the initial election, right?

So, everything is explained by third party candidates?

Hmm.

Everything? Not at all.

But do you believe that those candidates (Wallace: 13.5%, Anderson 6.6%, Perot 18.9%) had no effect on the popular vote percentages of the Democrats and Republicans running in those elections?

Well, lets stop and look at you examples.

First, let us suppose that ALL of the vote received by Wallace in 1968 had gone for Nixon.  In that case his 1972 vote (which does not include third party votes) would still be 60.67% whereas his 1968 vote would be approximately 57%, which would be an increase in my math.  Oh, and I do not think that had Wallace not have run, that Nixon would have gotten all the votes received by Wallace.

Second, let us turn to look at the 1980 vote.  In 1984 Reagan received 58.77% of the vote while in 1980 he received 50.75. Now if you combined ALL of Anderson’s 1980 vote with Reagan's 1980 vote, it would still amount to a slightly smaller percentage than Reagan actually received in 1984.  Further, the idea that Reagan would receive a majority, much less all of the Anderson 1980 vote seems a little preposterous to me.

Third, it is a little difficult to deal with the Perot vote (either in 1992 or 1996).  Studies that have been done that tend to indicate that in 1992 and/or 1996, had Perot not been a candidate, the two party vote would have been slightly more favorable for the Republicans than was actually the case, but, no major change would have occurred

So, while there may be some degree of impact by third parties, they do NOT impact the direction of the results.  The reelected Presidents would have won by a larger majority without the third party impact.  The Clinton/Perot example is arguable, but, not conclusive, whereas the other two examples ARE conclusive.

Yes, the third party candidates had some impact, but they did NOT deny my assertion.

Since you gave the Perot example, could you please tell me just how you would break out what would have happened in 1992 and/1996 had Perot NOT run.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Having a substantial third-party candidacy introduces a great deal of uncertainty to the statistical measure you lay out in your original post. (All of the values therein are written out to two decimal places despite this.) You have a significant uncontrolled variable that I thought was worth pointing out, that's all.

So. is it "uncertain" that 60.67% of the vote is more than 56.95%, or that 58.77% of the vote is more than 57.36%? 

Now, I freely admit that I cannot provide definitive evidence of how the Perot vote in 1992 or 1996 would have been cast had he not been a President.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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...

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

First, I started this thread, and as such didn't just "chime in,"

Second, I pointed out that your allegation that Presidents who did receive a larger percentage of the popular vote DID (in the case of Bush I) fail reelection contrary to your assertion.

Here is the exact quote:

"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."

Party               2008          1988

Democrat       45.56           52.87
Republican     53.37           45.60

Difference        7.72            7.27

So, are you using some kind of 'new math'?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Are you unable to comprehend simple English?

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"?