The historical trend I

[old timey villain]

I started a thread on this a few days ago. The trend actually goes back much farther than WWII. Somebody was saying that it actually goes back to the early 1800s, although I'm too tired to find the specific president.

So it's a pretty strong trend, but the polling looks like Obama will break it. He's polling ahead of Romney but not at the level he was in 2008. Of course a lot can happen in 4 months.

Before 2008 we had a pretty long streak of not electing people of color to the presidency. So maybe Obama will buck two trends.

[old timey villain]

As I mentioned in the other thread, the Presidents who ran and lost their reelection all had a smaller margin of victory in their first election than Obama did.

So, how do you explain the case of Bush I, who received 53.37% of the popular vote in 1988, but was defeated in 1992, while Obama received 52.87% of the popular vote in 2008?

Hmm...

Perot.  Factor him out of the race and H.W. at a minimum ekes out a narrow victory in a close contest. 

Bush/Quayle: 273
Clinton/Gore: 265

How in the world does a president with a sub-40% approval rating eke out a win over a relatively strong Democratic ticket? How does he win two states that Dukakis won in '88? Winning CT and ME is also a little far-fetched, considering how hard New England was hit by the recession and the fact that Bush actually finished third in ME. 

People who speculate that Bush would have won without Perot, or that it might have even been close, are delusional in my opinion. If you factor in his historically low approval ratings and the fact that Republicans had occupied the presidency for 12 years, you have to come to the conclusion that he would have lost in almost any situation.