Interesting history that overwhelmingly favors Romney

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 55 of the last 56 Presidential elections, a black candidate did not win the Presidential election.  Obama is facing some steep odds.  

But in all the last 56 elections, a Mormon has never won.

Candidates who are not white Protestants have won very few elections for President or Vice President, and that trend must continue this election. Every ticket that has ever been re-elected had 2 white Protestants, and every ticket that ever defeated an incumbent President had 2 white Protestants. Therefore, the winning ticket this year must have 2 white Protestants.

[pbrower2a]

Hmmmmmm........

I swiped this and thought you guys would appreciate it.

Obama is sure to get less Electoral votes and Popular votes.

Why is that important?

Because in all of American history, only twice has a president been re-elected while receiving fewer electoral votes than he did when first elected—and both of those instances occurred under anomalous circumstances.

In 1912, Wilson cruised to 435 electoral votes thanks to a three-way race in which TR and Taft split the Republican vote. Running for re-election in 1916 against a re-unified Republican Party, Wilson's electoral vote total unsurprisingly dipped all the way down to 277 and he squeaked out a victory over Charles Evans Hughes.

The only other president to buck the trend was FDR, who increased his electoral vote total from 472 in 1932 to a near-sweep of 523 in '36, but then saw decreases when he ran for unprecedented third and fourth terms.

Every other president to win re-election increased his electoral vote totals:

Washington — 69 --> 132
Jefferson — 73 --> 162
Madison — 122 --> 128
Monroe — 183 --> 231
Jackson — 178 --> 219
Lincoln — 180 --> 212
Grant — 214 --> 286
McKinley — 271 --> 292
Wilson — 435 --> 277
FDR (2nd term) — 472 --> 523
FDR (3rd term) — 523 --> 449
FDR (4th term) — 449 --> 432
Eisenhower — 442 --> 457
Nixon — 301 --> 520
Reagan — 489 --> 525
Clinton — 370 --> 379
Bush 43 — 271 --> 286

The same holds true of the popular vote, where the only two re-elected presidents to receive a smaller share than when they were initially elected were Andrew Jackson and, again, FDR in his unprecedented runs for third and fourth terms:

Jackson — 55.93 --> 54.74
Lincoln — 39.65 --> 55.03
Grant — 52.66 --> 55.58
McKinley — 51.02 --> 51.64
Wilson — 41.84 --> 49.24
FDR (2nd term) — 57.41 --> 60.80
FDR (3rd term) — 60.80 --> 54.74
FDR (4th term) — 54.74 --> 53.39
Eisenhower — 55.18 --> 57.37
Nixon — 43.42 --> 60.67
Reagan — 50.75 --> 58.77
Clinton — 43.01 --> 49.23
Bush 43 —47.87 --> 50.73

Again, it is certain that Obama will not equal his 2008 totals of 365 electoral votes and 52.87% of the popular vote.

In other words, to win re-election, Obama would need to become the first president to do so while seeing his electoral and popular vote totals decline without facing a significant third-party challenger or running for a third or fourth term.

Suffice to say, history and the laws of American electoral politics favor Romney getting to 270 tomorrow.

Precedent can be broken in any election. One is that no Presidential candidate has ever won with between roughly 57.1% (Truman, 1948) and 65.3% (McKinley, 1900) of the electoral vote beginning in 1900.   The mean result for all US Presidential elections is within that 'prohibited zone', but results seem to avoid clustering in that area instead of avoiding it. This is despite admission of five states, women's suffrage, mass immigration, demographic and technological change, and expansion of meaningful voting rights to Southern blacks.

This year we may see a result close to the median for all elections in electoral votes. (Of course many people predicted that President Obama would get 330 or so electoral votes in 2008. and he barely skirted the 'prohibited zone'.

Presidential winners would be happy with 320 or so electoral votes, as such indicates a safe margin of victory. Losers do not want to end up with 220 or so electoral votes. Someone who has a 70 EV loss staring him in the face is going to take chances that even if partially successful will create a closer election. If such efforts fail (like going after a state that has enough electoral votes to solve all problems but ignoring states marginally winnable) can backfire badly. One does not win by looking good while losing.

The 2008 election exemplifies the pattern, John McCain made a quixotic effort to win Pennsylvania but lost it badly -- while ignoring such states as Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida. He came close to losing Missouri. The eventual winner wins almost all the close states

This time Mitt Romney has a bunch of states that he must win that are on the margin of victory and defeat for him. But as those slip away he goes after -- what else? -- Pennsylvania. He makes some of the highest-risk buys of ads and statements at campaign stops -- some of the content of his statements and his ads are outright lies that if recognized as such can badly offend independent voters.

For him to lose as John McCain did in 2008 he would have to lose some states that now seem out of reach for President Obama -- Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, or Missouri -- at least two of them, of course.  But such seems unlikely this time.      

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

http://xkcd.com/1122/

Now shut up.

By the way, I notice that he changed his original Romney precedent: "Alliterative tickets are undefeated" after some complaints  from Adlai Stevenson.

[Robin]

Suffice to say, history and the laws of American electoral politics favor Romney getting to 270 tomorrow.

straw <<<---------->>> clutch

[Middle-aged Europe]

Obama's gonna win.

Save yourself the disappointment and get over it.

[King]

Predictable, Democrats prefer to ignore and dismiss inconvenient facts and data. It's like a kid who doesn't want to believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist. They will never change or grow up.

We really screwed up not believing this data, guys.

[Devils30]

Something tells me Cliffy will never be seen or heard from again.

[Sasquatch]

Something tells me Cliffy will never be seen or heard from again.

[k-onmmunist]

Predictable, Democrats prefer to ignore and dismiss inconvenient facts and data. It's like a kid who doesn't want to believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist. They will never change or grow up.

i'm presuming you've left now?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And now Obama is the first President to win a narrower reelection in almost a century. So there.

[GMantis]

The Democrats should hope that history doesn't continue to parallel Wilson and Obama

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Predictable, Democrats prefer to ignore and dismiss inconvenient facts and data. It's like a kid who doesn't want to believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist. They will never change or grow up.

So what you're saying is that everyone who has ever believed in Santa Claus still does.

[Antonio the Sixth]

ROFLMAO

[Niemeyerite]

ROFLMAO