Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins

Yeah, you’re really sweet, yet ignorant of history. My posts merely pointed out the big sweep and trend of presidential elections, and yours cherry picked a moment in time.

Good luck with that. buh bye.


44 posted on 05/03/2012 6:25:29 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: SoFloFreeper; reaganaut; SoConPubbie; P-Marlowe; wmfights

What I did was show an example that disproved the premise that presidents below 50% in the polls will lose.

In short, Obama is in no automatic trouble. Although under 50%, he leads Romney.

Bush was in no automatic trouble. Although under 50%, he led Kerry and eventually won.

As soon as I find a source of polling for all elections that have been a re-election, I’ll probably be giving you more info.

BTW, you realize, of course, that Clinton in his re-election polled less the 50% the entire way through.

So, the 2 most recent examples go against your premise.

The re-election campaign prior to Clinton was Bush 1 in 92 and prior to that would have been Reagan in 84. Correct?


46 posted on 05/03/2012 7:08:54 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Obama Disses the Operators Who Took Out Bin Laden in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson