What you fail to understand is that Ernest automatically disagrees with any point I make.
What you fail to realize I made this point in the other thread
well before you chimed in. Don't flatter yourself CARL. The opinions I hold are not determined in the slightest by yours.
First, I started this thread, and as such didn't just "chime in,"
There was another thread on this same subject on another board a couple days before you started. I didn't bother to recheck what I'd already written there since to me it wasn't significant enough to worry about. If I had, I'd have been more precise, but I still stand by what I said in that earlier thread: "Perot's third party played a significant factor is Bush 41's failure to be reelected."
Let's take a good look at the failures.
The Democratic share went down from 1988 to 1992. Perot's third party played a significant factor is Bush 41's failure to be reelected.
While Reagan won outright in 1980, Carter's margin of victory in 1976 was so small, that any decline was likely going to be fatal, whereas Obama's 53-46 result gives him a cushion that Peanuthead didn't have.
Having the Great Depression starting on your watch will do that. If the bubble had waited another year to burst, Obama would be a certain one-termer thanks to the Great Recession, but that's not what happened.
As with the 1988-1992 case, we have a third party option upsetting the results and the winner getting less of the vote than his party did four years earlier.
Altho Cleveland lost round 2, it was because of the quirks of the electoral college. He actually increased his popular vote margin of victory in 1888 over 1884.
As with Carter fourteen decades lower, Van Buren didn't have much of a margin, so pretty much any bump down was going to defeat him.
Anyway, because Obama has a larger margin to work with and no significant third party to deal with, if he wins with a lower share of the PV this time, it might be novel, but it won't be noteworthy.