Posted on 03/23/2012 4:38:13 PM PDT by sportutegrl
Why Obama is destined to Lose in 2012:
With few rare exceptions, no president has served two terms that straddled two decades. (First elected in years ending in 4, 6 or 8.) Conversely, almost all presidents won reelection if both terms stayed in one decade. (First election in a year ending in 0 or 2).
Thus we have presidents who ‘define a decade’: Reagan defining the 1980’s, elected in 1980 and 1984. Clinton, the 90’s: ’92 and 96; and ‘W’ Bush, the 2000’s, elected in 2000 and ’04. Presidents who would have straddled two decades were: Carter, elected in 1976 (1 term), and ‘HW’ Bush, elected in 1988.
This rule holds for all presidents going back to Grant, elected in 1868 and 1872. Other ‘straddlers’ were Nixon and McKinley, who both failed to finish their second term, so maybe the rule is that they won’t get to serve an entire two terms. The exception that breaks the second half of this rule is Pierce, who was elected in 1852, but not reelected, even though he would have defined the decade.
Obama was elected in 2008. If he is reelected in 2012, his two terms would 'straddle' two decades, and no straddler has completed two terms in 140 years.
FDR is an unusual case. He was elected in 1932, and 1936, so he defined the 1930’s, and was elected in 1940 and 1944, defining the 1940’s. He also died in office, (elected in a year ending in zero). I don’t know how to classify Grover Cleveland, who was elected for the first time in 1844, except to say that maybe he knew he wouldn’t get reelected if he straddled two decades, so he sat out a term.
Since Harrison, elected in 1840, there has been another rule concerning presidents elected in years ending in zero: They all died in office. This particular rule has held up to Reagan, elected in 1980, who was only shot, but survived. So these presidents, and their successors, tend to disrupt the decades rule somewhat.
does “and being a complete failure” have anything to do with them losing...just asking?
The Marxist depravity may just overshadow the ephemeral rules of numerology or superstition.
Yes, but you can’t beat somebody with nobody, and the GOP’s been producing nobodies for a while, the latest of which goes by the nickname “Mitt.” Look for new records to be set.
I just like the title and feel my BP coming down already! :-)
Obama’s Department of Energy conducted “research” through the Argonne Laboratory that showed the amazing ease with which electronic voting machines could be remotely hacked and the voting results changed—undetectably. Isn’t that just swell?!
Let’s not forget that the United States’ dominant election results reporting company, SOE, has been sold to a globalist election reporting company out of Barcelona called Scytl. This means that the election results for 525 U.S. jurisdictions and counting will be redirected through this foreign company before Americans can see them.
This is in addition to the foot soldier fraudsters on the ground--the dead voters, the multiple voting voters, the felons and otherwise illegal voters--who are being helped in the fraud by Obama's "Justice" Department which is preventing common-sense voter ID laws from being enacted.
Amen to that!! Never before in US history has the nation been so beset with total-criminal-liberal-lying-media. Hell, they're quiet as a mouse about record gasoline prices - that is, until they start lying even more about it.
“The Marxist depravity may just overshadow the ephemeral rules of numerology or superstition.”
__________________________________________
Don’t you really mean the depravity of the Marxist
educational system, k-grad school, and the Marxist main stream media that is brainwashing the minions 24/7?
America is plunging, just as an airplane in a flat stall.
Everyone has been talking about Rutherford B. Hayes lately. Elected in 1876, he was doomed to one term.
I didn’t mean this to be superstition. I meant more like a quirk of history, like the odd number of presidents who died in office that were elected in years ending in zero.
Destined? Don’t make me laugh. That’s a mighty intense word to use on some very unscientific, random chronology of events that have a habit of not being very consistent over time. I put ZERO (pun intended) credibility in it.
I confess I just like the way the headline sounded. I had read an interesting article a while back about how history changes with each new decade. People tend to want change each decade, and that includes presidents.
He would definitely have lost if the republicans would have put up a truly conservative candidate. As it turns out then it looks like we are going to get Absolute Obama clone as the GOP candidate. The GOP itself is giving Obama the very best chance to win again.
Have you checked in with Calypso Louie on this? I have read he is very big into numerology.............
2010...build on it. C’mon November!
DEPOPULATE socialists from the body politic.
DEFUND socialist collectives, foreign and domestic.
live - free - republic
FUS
LOL!
If Romney is rammed down our throats, then it doesn’t matter. Either way, the Obama administration continues.
Gotta be the Mayan calendar thing.
Friday Silliness thread?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.