Which President reelection looked the most Bleak after their first midterm
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:33:57 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Which President reelection looked the most Bleak after their first midterm
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Vote
#1
Carter after 1978
 
#2
Reagan after 1982
 
#3
Bush SR after 1990
 
#4
Clinton after 1994
 
#5
Bush Jr after 2002
 
#6
Obama after 2010
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 68

Author Topic: Which President reelection looked the most Bleak after their first midterm  (Read 5314 times)
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 20, 2015, 08:24:39 PM »

Im guessing Clinton after 1994
Logged
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2015, 08:46:38 PM »

Yeah the 2002 midterms definitely took a stab at bushs reelection campaign
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,798
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2015, 08:48:34 PM »

Obama due to fact Mitt Romney looked very strong at the time, and we knew he was running. And Obama was the firsy blk president.

But, Clinton's looked bleak as well, but he had another go at it with Perot, that saved his presidency.
Logged
YaBoyNY
NYMillennial
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2015, 09:16:29 PM »

Obama due to fact Mitt Romney looked very strong at the time, and we knew he was running. And Obama was the firsy blk president.

But, Clinton's looked bleak as well, but he had another go at it with Perot, that saved his presidency.

Perot didn't save Clinton in '96.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2015, 12:41:20 AM »

I'm going with Obama after 2010   , but Clinton after 1994 is essentially tied.
Logged
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2015, 08:03:15 AM »

Obama due to fact Mitt Romney looked very strong at the time, and we knew he was running. And Obama was the firsy blk president.

But, Clinton's looked bleak as well, but he had another go at it with Perot, that saved his presidency.

Perot didn't save Clinton in '96.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,109
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2015, 08:44:57 AM »

It was Bill Clinton, in 1994, because the U.S. House flipped Republican for the first time in 40 years. The U.S. Senate also flipped. And there was a consciousness of the Democrats' electoral failures, at the presidential level, during this realigning period for the Republicans.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2015, 01:19:33 PM »

Why hasnt anyone mentioned Reagan after 1982, I mean the Republicans lost 30 seats in the house and they defended far less seats then the Democrats did in 1994 or 2010
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2015, 01:20:31 PM »

Obama due to fact Mitt Romney looked very strong at the time, and we knew he was running. And Obama was the firsy blk president.

But, Clinton's looked bleak as well, but he had another go at it with Perot, that saved his presidency.

I thought Republicans had as much chance of unseating Obama after 2010 as the democrats had a chance of unseating Reagan in 1982
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,472
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2015, 03:49:18 PM »

Clinton I think.
Logged
Obama-Biden Democrat
Zyzz
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2015, 05:40:22 PM »

Obama due to fact Mitt Romney looked very strong at the time, and we knew he was running. And Obama was the firsy blk president.

But, Clinton's looked bleak as well, but he had another go at it with Perot, that saved his presidency.

After the 2010 midterm disaster, people could point and say Clinton got blown out in 1994 and then had a comeback in 1996. In 1994 after the Republican wave, Clinton really didn't have that same positive example to rely on. Carter lost in 1978 and then lost in 1980 so that was a bad example for Clinton. My vote would go to Clinton in 1994.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2015, 05:59:01 PM »

I'm going to say Obama. 2010 wasn't as big as 1994 with the Senate, but the 2010 senate seats were the same as 2004 (a good Republican year). If the 2008 Senate seats were up in 2010, I think we would've seen gains bigger than 2014. And 64 gains in the House is historic.
Logged
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,968


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2015, 08:39:15 PM »

Clinton in 1994.  He had one of the rockiest first two years of a presidency.  And when the Democrats lost both the House and Senate, Gingrich became Speaker and Clinton had to argue in a press conference that he wasn't irrelevant.   It was a remarkable comeback in 1996.
Logged
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2015, 11:01:29 PM »

Obama due to fact Mitt Romney looked very strong at the time, and we knew he was running. And Obama was the firsy blk president.

But, Clinton's looked bleak as well, but he had another go at it with Perot, that saved his presidency.

After the 2010 midterm disaster, people could point and say Clinton got blown out in 1994 and then had a comeback in 1996. In 1994 after the Republican wave, Clinton really didn't have that same positive example to rely on. Carter lost in 1978 and then lost in 1980 so that was a bad example for Clinton. My vote would go to Clinton in 1994.

It's going back awhile, but Clinton had the example of Truman winning after '46.

Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,109
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2015, 07:36:10 PM »

Obama due to fact Mitt Romney looked very strong at the time, and we knew he was running. And Obama was the firsy blk president.

But, Clinton's looked bleak as well, but he had another go at it with Perot, that saved his presidency.

I thought Republicans had as much chance of unseating Obama after 2010 as the democrats had a chance of unseating Reagan in 1982

Me, too. The Republicans of 2012 were even more unlikely to win back the White House as the Democrats of 1984.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,798
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2015, 08:08:19 PM »

Mitt Romney looked better on paper and was leading in some polls before election. It was Hurricane Sandy, very much like the Bin Laden tape in 2004 that tipped the election.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2015, 09:22:58 PM »
« Edited: July 22, 2015, 09:24:42 PM by The Mikado »

Obama was nowhere near sunk after the 2010 midterms. The Congressional Democrats were taken to the cleaners, but it was clear even during the election coverage that a lot of that was Obama's personal vote not showing up to vote in an offyear, whether out of apathy or out of disgust for the way Obama's first two years went. Obama's task in 2012 was to convince people who had supported him in 2008 to come home and turn out again.

Clinton had gotten a commanding...43% of the vote in 1992. The overwhelming majority of the country had voted for not-Clinton in his first election, and his Congress was overwhelmingly turned out in 1994. Clinton looked absolutely hosed and had the far bigger challenge of persuading people who had voted for not-him in 1992 to vote for him in 1996.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,624
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2015, 11:27:19 PM »

To add to what Mikado was saying, the Republican field for 1996, even though many prominent potential candidates ended up not running, was much stronger than the Republican field for 2012. The answer is, without a doubt, Clinton in 1994.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2015, 11:59:35 PM »

I think Obamas. The Republicans thought they were gonna win on Election Night 2012. Romney didn't even prepare a concession speech. The Dems knew they were gonna win in 1996.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2015, 01:53:32 AM »

Obama due to fact Mitt Romney looked very strong at the time, and we knew he was running. And Obama was the firsy blk president.

But, Clinton's looked bleak as well, but he had another go at it with Perot, that saved his presidency.

After the 2010 midterm disaster, people could point and say Clinton got blown out in 1994 and then had a comeback in 1996. In 1994 after the Republican wave, Clinton really didn't have that same positive example to rely on. Carter lost in 1978 and then lost in 1980 so that was a bad example for Clinton. My vote would go to Clinton in 1994.

It's going back awhile, but Clinton had the example of Truman winning after '46.



Or Reagan-1982.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2015, 07:23:26 AM »

Obama due to fact Mitt Romney looked very strong at the time, and we knew he was running. And Obama was the firsy blk president.

But, Clinton's looked bleak as well, but he had another go at it with Perot, that saved his presidency.

After the 2010 midterm disaster, people could point and say Clinton got blown out in 1994 and then had a comeback in 1996. In 1994 after the Republican wave, Clinton really didn't have that same positive example to rely on. Carter lost in 1978 and then lost in 1980 so that was a bad example for Clinton. My vote would go to Clinton in 1994.

It's going back awhile, but Clinton had the example of Truman winning after '46.



Or Reagan-1982.

Reagan kept the senate in 1982 ala how Obama kept the Senate  in 2010
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2015, 01:32:13 PM »

Taft in 1910.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2015, 05:38:29 PM »

Definitely Clinton. There were serious calls for him to step aside and not even run for reelection. Being able to avoid a primary challenge was a minor miracle for him.
Logged
MisSkeptic
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2015, 12:44:03 AM »

George W. Bush because of the backlash he faced and opposition by the Democrats, who were gaining popularity points.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 30, 2015, 12:55:09 PM »

George W. Bush because of the backlash he faced and opposition by the Democrats, who were gaining popularity points.

The Republicans made gains in both the Senate and House in 2002.  I think after 2002 it was expected Bush would cruise to an easy reelection victory.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 13 queries.