Is DS0816's 4th highest vote theory the most hopelessly hackish theory ever?

[Mechaman]

Btw, Obama in 2008 had better popular vote results than any other candidate since Bush in 1988.

Obama was a party-pickup. Bush was a party hold.

Obama's 52.87% U.S. Popular Vote is the fourth-highest of a pickup (obviously winning a first term), following 1920 Warren Harding (60.32%), 1932 Franklin Roosevelt (57.41%), and 1952 Dwight Eisenhower (55.18%).

No one president, nor his party (Harding died in 1923), has failed to hold the White House under these circumstances.

First off, you forgot to include Andrew Jackson's 55.93% of the popular vote in 1828 and William H. Harrison's 52.87% in 1840 (both pickups, though the latter's party failed to hold the WH or the Congress by next election.  I'll get to that in a minute).  If we were to do things by the way you do it (aka hurr durr the stats add up method) that would actually make the list of highest pickups this:

1. Warren Harding (Republican) 1920: 60.32% Popular Vote
2. Franklin Roosevelt (Democratic) 1932: 57.41% Popular Vote
3. Andrew Jackson (Democratic) 1828*: 55.93% Popular Vote
4. Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) 1952: 55.18% Popular Vote
5. William H. Harrison (Whig) 1840: 52.87%.  Barack H. Obama (Democratic) 2008: 52.87%. Tie
Due to only a few states at the time having popular vote I excluded Thomas Jefferson EPIC trouncing of John Adams.

*for the record (and Wikipedia will back me up on this) President John Quincy Adams was part of the National Republican Party when he was running for re-election, so I consider it a party pickup.  Let's say this tidbit doesn't count and John Q. is considered a Democratic-Republican all four years, well that's still technically a party pickup since Andrew Jackson was running as the presidential nominee of the Democratic party and was sworn in as the Democratic president.  Just saying if someone brings that up.

Now as most of us probably already know William H. Harrison died just a month or so into his presidential reign and things definitely didn't go so well for his Whig Party, now did it?  In fact Harrison's successor John Tyler was EXPELLED from his own party and went through the rest of his term as an Independent because he went against his party so many times.  Let's just say after all of that things didn't go so well for the Whig Party in the Election of 1844.

......And William H. Harrison was tied with Obama in terms of popular vote percentage from a party pickup.
Based on DS's logic I might as well make this kind of conclusion (courtesy of Nichlemn):

I think this might be an example of "overfitting". Obama was a sitting Senator when elected President, and in no identical situation did the President's party fail to hold the White House at the next election. Well ...  and the other former sitting Senators all died in the third year of their Presidency. I guess we should start betting on Biden 2012.

DS was too lazy to research any trends that went outside of his Obamabot brain.  Not only is Obama not the fourth highest popular vote "pickup" in a presidential election ever, the guy he's tied with in fifth place:

a) died 30 days into office
b) successor was so unpopular WITH HIS OWN PARTY THAT HE GOT EXPELLED FROM IT
c) Whig party got beat like a hillbilly on his wife in the midterm election by the Democratic Party in the US House of Representatives in 1842.
d) Oh just a midterm election says you?  How about the Election of 1844? The Whig Party lost the presidential election and eleven US Senate seats to the Democrats.  The only gains they had were in the House, but Democrats still had an OVER 62% MAJORITY in the US House.
e) Oh yeah did I forget to mention that his party failed to hold the White House or US Congress by 1845?  Did I?!

So either Obama is looking to be the next Jesus Mohammed Rocky Balboa Christ figure in Murican political history, or he's bound to:

a) die sometime before 2012
b) Be so unpopular that his party gets massacred so bad in Congress that it makes the chainsaw murder scene from Scarface look like a mercy killing.
c) Lose re-election.

Okay let's say that you can prove that Jackson's number shouldn't be included in the list due to some states not having a popular vote system (those states being Delaware and South Carolina.......yeah, that would put Jackson's number in doubt).  Let's also say that Obama won a tiny bit more than Harrison did (let's give him a generous ceiling of 53%).  Newsflash: 53% is closer to 52.87% than it is to 55.18%!  Does the fact that Obama won just a non-noticeable amount of more PV percentage than Harrison suddenly mean he is going to be invincible come re-election time?!  Is there some kind of spell, gift, blessing of the Magi that occurs because he would happen to be the fourth highest PV percentage point pickup in US presidential history?  I mean I know I'm not the smartest of individuals, big words confuse me and stuffs, but for some reason I can't muster the brainpower to accept the idea that some kind of higher power exists that means that any president who wins more than 53% of the PV in a pickup election is bound to win re-election.  Please save us Mister Stats Man!

What's even funnier is that despite my extremely detailed post on why he's an idiot this moron still posts this theory (except that he magically ups Obama's number to 52.92 just to make it look better) like it's a given undeniable 180% fact that since Obama won a non-noticeable more than Harrison did (according to this Atlas they are tied btw) he is destined by some magical sign of the Magi to become the next coming of Jesus Harry Christ.

God, I hate hacks.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Pretty insane, yeah.

[Mechaman]

For the record I think Obama will win re-election.  I just don't think he'll do it in the Jesusy landslide that hacks like this predict he will.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Anyone remember pbrower's "approval + 6" rule?

[tpfkaw]

Anyone remember pbrower's "approval + 6" rule?

He's still going strong with it.  South Carolina - swing state!

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Folks trying to overfit data always amuse me. Just because no redheaded, ambidextrous freemason who was elected to a first term with over 51.25% has ever lost re-election (or some such ridiculous overfit that convinces nobody but themselves), doesn't mean that it won't happen the next time.

[Bacon King]

Haha, oh wow.

Also, the "sitting Senators, when elected President, get killed in the third year of their term" is a pretty interesting factoid. Never made the connection there with Harding and Kennedy.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Option 4: Mechaman = FF for his response to DS0816.

[King]

Pretty obvious fail.  Even if he only meant it to be of 20th Century-to-current America, Jimmy Carter broke 50% and dropped to 41% in his re-election to Ronald Reagan, another 50% breaker who he didn't even bother to mention.

[Mechaman]

If we exclude the Election of 1796 (due to only a few states having the popular vote back then) the list of "pick up elections" with over 50% of the vote is:

Andrew Jackson (Democratic-Tennessee) 1828 55.93%
William Harrison (Whig-Ohio) 1840 52.87%
Franklin Pierce (Democratic-New Hampshire) 1852 50.83%
Depending on how you look at it Ulysses Grant (Republican-Ohio) 1868 52.66% could be considered a "pick up election".
William McKinley (Republican-Ohio) 1896 51.02%
Warren G. Harding (Republican-Ohio) 1920 60.32%
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic-New York) 1932 57.41%
Dwight Eisenhower (Republican-New York) 1952 55.18%
James Carter (Democratic-Georgia) 1976 50.08%
Ronald Reagan (Republican-California) 1980 50.75%
Barack Obama (Democratic-Illinois) 2008 52.87%

Sure, one could say "most candidates who win a majority in a presidential election get re-elected".  But such assumptions like "he has the weight of history behind him" are meaningless when you consider the universal maxim "rules are meant to be broken".  Many thought that William Harrison would be an unbelievably great president only to see him die only a month into office.  Many thought that James Carter would preside over a new era of Democratic greatness under a pragmatic presidency only to see him lose re-election with only 41% of the vote and be remembered by many Americans for being a capital L "Loser".
You can't judge a book by it's cover people.  Many people expected the "extremist" Reagan to go down in flames in 1984 yet he ended up winning one of the biggest electoral vote landslides in history.  A lot of us thought that Dubya, the Special One, would be destroyed in 2004 after running off of a campaign of "herp derp derp! and not even winning the popular vote in 2000.
Seriously.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Mechaman, I don't get why do you spend so much time trying to prove how silly DS is. Really guy, his posts speak for himself.

[Mechaman]

Mechaman, I don't get why do you spend so much time trying to prove how silly DS is. Really guy, his posts speak for himself.

Unlike others I get a sexual arousal from making fun of the mentally ill and handicapped.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Mechaman, I don't get why do you spend so much time trying to prove how silly DS is. Really guy, his posts speak for himself.

     Indeed, let us note that this is the guy who seems to think that Obama will do better in Michigan in 2012 because every two-term President since FDR has, including Eisenhower doing 0.01% better.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

DS was one of the first members I met after I joined the forum.  He got mad at me because I didn't think Texas was a swing state.  lol


Edit:  Forgot he got mad at me for not labeling SC, GA, the Dakotas as Obama pickups/ swing states on the same thread...