foodgellas
Newbie
Posts: 11
|
 |
« on: May 24, 2011, 05:14:38 PM » |
|
|
« edited: May 24, 2011, 05:18:17 PM by foodgellas »
|
This is unlikely to be a repeat of 1992.
In 1992:
1. The incumbent president faced a primary challenge because he lost the support of his base.
2. The incumbent party had held power for almost 12 years.
3. The incumbent president presided over an economy that was healthy in '89 and bad by '92
4. The incumbent president ran against a Democrat and a third party candidate
5. The incumbent president lacked charisma and the common touch
In 2012:
1. The incumbent president is not going to face a primary challenge
2. The incumbent party has held power for only 2.5 years
3. The incumbent president has presided over a gradually improving economy
4. The incumbent president is unlikely to be hurt by a third party candidate
5. The incumbent president is the most charismatic leader the country has had in three decades
This is not going to be a repeat of 1984, either. Just watch one of Reagan's "morning in America" TV spots and you'll see that the economy is never going to improve enough to allow Obama to run on that message.
A hybrid of 1996 and 2004 seems to be the most accurate comparison. Obama will prevail by a larger margin than Bush II but by a smaller margin than Clinton.
|
