Skip to comments.The Curse Of The Even "8" Rule - Why Williard Mitt Romney Will Be Our Next President (Vanity)
Posted on 10/31/2012 10:00:07 PM PDT by goldstategop
Theres the even 8 rule... no President elected in a even numbered year ending in 8 in the last 150 years has ever been re-elected.
Ulysses S. Grant elected in 1868 would have been defeated in 1872 if it hadnt been for Reconstruction.
Benjamin Harrison elected in 1888 was defeated for re-eletion in 1892 by Grover Cleveland.
Howard Taft elected in 1908 was defeated for re-election in 1912 by Woodrow Wilson.
Herbert Hoover elected in 1928 was defeated for re-election in 1932 by FDR.
Harry Truman elected in 1948 would have been defeated in 1952 had he opted to run for re-election against Ike Eisenhower.
The only historical exception to the rule - Richard Nixon elected in 1968. His re-elected second term in 1972 was cut short by Watergate though.
George Bush I elected in 1988 was defeated for re-election in 1992 by Bill Clinton.
Now this brings us to our present (unlucky?) incumbent - Barack Obama was elected in an even numbered year ending in 8 - and if this rule holds true as I think it will, he will be defeated by Williard Mitt Romney.
Trust me, you do not want to be elected President in an even numbered year ending in 8. You will not get re-elected if you do. And if you are, chances are good you will not finish out your term in office!
Some interesting historical-political trivia for those who interested in it.
A mathematical coincidence that strikes me as peculiar - you can verify it for yourself and see what that means on November 6th.
All years ending in 8 are “even” numbered years.
” in a even numbered year ending in 8 in the last 150 years “
All of those were even years.
No presidential election is held in an odd-numbered “8” year - 1858, 1878, 1898, 1918... you get the drift.
Sadly we will get Obamney.
Someone, quick! send this to Romney. He can stop his campaign right now and save money. It’s a shame he didn’t know about this months ago.
So its true except for when its not.....gotcha.
That’s just silly. A lichen covered rock would be better that what is occupying the White House now..
I hope we aren’t headed for another “historical” election. That last one left a bad taste.
The year “68” is the only exception to the rule.
1868, 1968 - our next two term President will be in 2068.
1984, Reagan was right handed
There is no largest prime.
Every bounded non-empty set of integers has a least element.
Every bounded non-empty set of reals has a least upper bound.
A set is infinite, if and only if, it can be placed in a one-to-one correspondence with one of its proper subsets.
The integers cannot be placed into one-to-one correspondence with any non-empty open interval of reals, no matter how small.
The product of a collection of non-empty sets is not empty.
Every Sigma Algebra of a countably infinite set is uncountable.
These things don't involve voting. You can rely on them. Anything involving free will that isn't absolutely forbidden by logic, mathematics, or physics is eventually going to happen.
Wise up. Romney is infinitely better than the scum in the White Hut and you don’t look real good by trying to equate the two.
Yet there is a definite pattern - you have to explain why the rule holds true for all years except those ending in “68.” Why is “68” special? Its a mathematical constant.
I don’t need to look at the polls to know “O” will lose this year. If he defies the odds and IS re-elected, then we will know its no longer a universal rule.
Every year ending in eight, no matter how large, whether Presidential or not, is an even year: 0 ... 8 ... 18 ... inifinity. You get the drift.
I could qualify it by stating it applies to presidential election years but that would make the title of this thread lengthier.
All the poor pollsters and both campaigns could have saved themselves the money and the time. And if I’m wrong - well then you’re right, we do have free will and rules are meant to be broken!
Our next one term President will be elected in 2028. So we will have a few two term Presidents until then. ;-)
I heard this one when Reagan was elected: "William Henry Harrison was the first President to die in office. He was elected in 1840. Since then, every President elected in a year ending in 0 has died in office."
And then ...
... Reagan didn't die. And 0 was still a "numerical constant."
Those posts are just plain silly, an inaminate object would be better than what in office now.
Just in terms of corporate investing for example; news of the election of a pro business president will spur private sector investment. What a silly comment to make 5 days out, what’s he going to do, stay home?
Reagan was the first to break that rule.... Lincoln, elected 1860, was assassinated in 1865. Arthur Garfield, elected 1880, was assassinated in 1881. William McKinley, elected in 1900, was assassinated in 1901. Warren G. Harding, elected in 1920, died in office in 1923. FDR, elected in 1940, died in office in 1945. John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960, assassinated in 1963. Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980, narrowly escaped assassination in 1981. George Bush is the second President elected in a year ending in “0” not to die in office.
Yeah, I think the fact that Reagan broke that rule is pretty obvious, both from my post — which says it — and the history we all lived through.
No Democrat since FDR has gotten a majority of the popular vote a 2nd time.
I didn't say that. But I honestly think that a vote for Romney is not good. (I'll concede that a vote for Obama may be worse; I will not concede that a 3rd party vote is useless.)
IMO, People thinking "Romney will save us" are fools, in the very literal sense of having been fooled. (I'll admit, it's my opinion and I may well be wrong; but you have to admit that a lot of people are setting themselves up for disappointment, especially with the "he'll repeal Obamacare.")
Look, the "Romney will repeal..." line is horrid: if he does repeal anything (Executive Orders are 'rescinded') then he will be further degrading the fundamental purpose of our Constitution (separating powers) just like Obama, if he does not then he's a "major disappointment to his supporters" just like Obama.
The "Romney will save our country because of budgeting" again suffers the same problem: Congress is the body that is to do the budgeting.
The "Romney is a businessman so he must be good for business" is ridiculous on its face: given that power corrupts, why should we expect a businessman not to play political games with businesses (which is what Obama's admin does)? Why should "being a businessman" be proof against implementing crony capitalism, or fascism?
Why should I accept his "pro-life" label as valid if he supports the very exceptions that devalue innocent lives, condemning them to death for nothing they did?
The Supreme Court argument is just as vacuous, considering the types of judges Romney has appointed.
Why in God's good name should I accept an "our scum is better than their scum" type argument?
You degrade my intelligence, belittle my conscious, and refuse to hear any warning at all.
Clinton is the only Dem since FDR to be re-elected.
I didn’t say he would save us, I said he was a lot better choice than Obama. I’m pretty emphatic about getting rid of Hussein before we can do anything. Purity has its merits but can be dangerous, too. Especially, if you are not voting against Obama (you as in plural). I worry when I see posts such as yours because it implies to me, perhaps wrongly, that a vote will be wasted.
But it is silly to say there is no difference between the two, at the very least, Romney has had a real job before..
Sorry about the comma abuse!
Those little historical quirks are always interesting...
Of course, I remember in 1980 when prognosticators said Reagan would die in office because every President elected in a year ending in 0 had done so either by natural causes or assassination dating back to 1840.
Why you should accept it is the reason we are in the situation we are in is because some idiots on our side think its better to surrender instead of taking every inch of ground we can take every time we can take it. And if you see no difference between the current occupant if the white house and the republican candidate for president then no one here can denigrate your intelligence more than your own stupid comments
From Intrade? Then you and Professor Wang Of The Princeton Consortium and Nate Silver are in good company.
Intrade gives O a 65% chance of winning next week. Professor Wang gives a O a 98% chance of winning and Nate Silver of course puts it at a 77% chance O will win.
With odds like that, you stand a good chance of collecting on them - if they are right!
We’ll find out if that’s true next week.
No one named Obama has ever been re-elected
Of course, no one named Romney has ever been elected president
This is like the old “Presidents elected in years ending in zero never live to complete their last term in office”. Back in the 1980s, everyone knew that Reagan would die before 1988 because of the “curse” that killed Lincoln, Kennedy, McKinley, and FDR. Of course, 8 years of Reagan and 8 years of GWB put that “curse” to bed forever.
Politically there really is so little difference as to be negligible.
Rhetorically they are very different, and in their personal histories they are obviously different -- even two brothers have differing histories.
I worry when I see posts such as yours because it implies to me, perhaps wrongly, that a vote will be wasted.
How will it be wasted? Because I choose to vote 3rd party? Neither of the major parties owns my vote, nor will I give them my vote "because the other guy's worse" -- I did that in 2008, and was utterly disgusted by McCain, to prevent that I'll now only vote for someone, someone who I believe will do a good job. (I do not believe Romney will do a good job, nor do I believe that the republican party will "hold his feet to the fire.")
Actually, that “curse” ignored the fact that Jefferson and Monroe both lived past their terms in office. Jefferson was elected in 1800, Monroe in 1820, both years ending in zero. Apparently this “curse” only started because of a long inaugaral address in cold weather leading to a case of pneumonia.