Bush 2004 Results vs Obama 2012 Results

[OSR stands with Israel]

Comparing the percentage Obama and Bush won in each state and seeing who did better in each state

Bush 275
Obama 263

This is stunning seeing that Obama won by a much bigger margin in 2012 then Bush did in 2004 but loses overall numbers wise

[Boston Bread]

Note Obama would win using 2004 EV's.

[nclib]

Note Obama would win using 2004 EV's.

No, it would be tied at 269.

[Boston Bread]

Note Obama would win using 2004 EV's.

No, it would be tied at 269.

Yes, you're right.
It is interesting, but nothing democrats should worry about. In both 2004 and 2012 the democrat would have won in a tied election.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Comparing the percentage Obama and Bush won in each state and seeing who did better in each state

Bush 275
Obama 263

This is stunning seeing that Obama won by a much bigger margin in 2012 then Bush did in 2004

IIRC this is exactly the map the Romney campaign was aiming for (plus NH), specifically because they thought demographics and turnout would either a.) hold at 2008 levels, but groups (especially whites independents) would swing away from Obama and give Romney a narrow victory, b.) demographics would return to 2004 levels and give Romney a big win, or c.) somewhere between the two, giving him a good-sized-but-not-huge win.

[The Mikado]

A pretty good night for Romney could add the very, very swingy Iowa to that column, but that's about it before we get to crushing Romney win Wisconsin falls territory.

Edit: While Pennsylvania was closer than Iowa, it's not very elastic.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Note Obama would win using 2004 EV's.

No, it would be tied at 269.

Yes, you're right.
It is interesting, but nothing democrats should worry about. In both 2004 and 2012 the democrat would have won in a tied election.

Democrats would not have won a tied election .  If no candidate get 270 it goes to the US house of representatives in which Republicans held control after 2004 and 2012. Although Biden would be win the Vice Presidency in the Senate.   

[OSR stands with Israel]

Comparing the percentage Obama and Bush won in each state and seeing who did better in each state

Bush 275
Obama 263

This is stunning seeing that Obama won by a much bigger margin in 2012 then Bush did in 2004

IIRC this is exactly the map the Romney campaign was aiming for (plus NH), specifically because they thought demographics and turnout would either a.) hold at 2008 levels, but groups (especially whites independents) would swing away from Obama and give Romney a narrow victory, b.) demographics would return to 2004 levels and give Romney a big win, or c.) somewhere between the two, giving him a good-sized-but-not-huge win.

Decent strategy for Romney, there was really no other method he could have won by.

Republicans need their version of Bill Clinton who can create a new coalition for the Republican party to give them the advantage electorally. Just like using the New Deal Coalition failed for Democrats spectacularly after LBJ and before Clinton except in 1976 when Carter only won because of Watergate because the Democrats until Clinton failed to realize that the New Deal Coalition was no longer Applicable during that time period. Likewise Nixon's Silent Majority Coalition will fail as it is no longer applicable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm surprised by Colorado.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I tend to think that the Romney campaign realized there was a certain inelasticity in Ohio and the following is actually what they were aiming for.

Romney wins 271-267

[Sumner 1868]

Comparing the percentage Obama and Bush won in each state and seeing who did better in each state

Bush 275
Obama 263

This is stunning seeing that Obama won by a much bigger margin in 2012 then Bush did in 2004

IIRC this is exactly the map the Romney campaign was aiming for (plus NH), specifically because they thought demographics and turnout would either a.) hold at 2008 levels, but groups (especially whites independents) would swing away from Obama and give Romney a narrow victory, b.) demographics would return to 2004 levels and give Romney a big win, or c.) somewhere between the two, giving him a good-sized-but-not-huge win.

Decent strategy for Romney, there was really no other method he could have won by.

Republicans need their version of Bill Clinton who can create a new coalition for the Republican party to give them the advantage electorally. Just like using the New Deal Coalition failed for Democrats spectacularly after LBJ and before Clinton except in 1976 when Carter only won because of Watergate because the Democrats until Clinton failed to realize that the New Deal Coalition was no longer Applicable during that time period. Likewise Nixon's Silent Majority Coalition will fail as it is no longer applicable.

I don't think Clinton created a new coalition so much as he averted the GOP advantage via voter outrage at the aftermath of Reaganite neoliberalism.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Comparing the percentage Obama and Bush won in each state and seeing who did better in each state

Bush 275
Obama 263

This is stunning seeing that Obama won by a much bigger margin in 2012 then Bush did in 2004

IIRC this is exactly the map the Romney campaign was aiming for (plus NH), specifically because they thought demographics and turnout would either a.) hold at 2008 levels, but groups (especially whites independents) would swing away from Obama and give Romney a narrow victory, b.) demographics would return to 2004 levels and give Romney a big win, or c.) somewhere between the two, giving him a good-sized-but-not-huge win.

Decent strategy for Romney, there was really no other method he could have won by.

Republicans need their version of Bill Clinton who can create a new coalition for the Republican party to give them the advantage electorally. Just like using the New Deal Coalition failed for Democrats spectacularly after LBJ and before Clinton except in 1976 when Carter only won because of Watergate because the Democrats until Clinton failed to realize that the New Deal Coalition was no longer Applicable during that time period. Likewise Nixon's Silent Majority Coalition will fail as it is no longer applicable.

I don't think Clinton created a new coalition so much as he averted the GOP advantage via voter outrage at the aftermath of Reaganite neoliberalism.

Wasnt Reagan quite popular as he did leave office with 63% approval rating

[Boston Bread]

Romney was even going for PA at the end, the map he was aiming for wasn't realistic at all by November.

[Devils30]

Just comparing the % Bush and Obama received can be deceiving. If you compared the margin of victory, Ohio and Colorado would flip to the Democrats. Bush won CO by less than 5, Obama by more than 5. Obama's 3% in Ohio beats Bush's 2.1%.

[Sumner 1868]

Comparing the percentage Obama and Bush won in each state and seeing who did better in each state

Bush 275
Obama 263

This is stunning seeing that Obama won by a much bigger margin in 2012 then Bush did in 2004

IIRC this is exactly the map the Romney campaign was aiming for (plus NH), specifically because they thought demographics and turnout would either a.) hold at 2008 levels, but groups (especially whites independents) would swing away from Obama and give Romney a narrow victory, b.) demographics would return to 2004 levels and give Romney a big win, or c.) somewhere between the two, giving him a good-sized-but-not-huge win.

Decent strategy for Romney, there was really no other method he could have won by.

Republicans need their version of Bill Clinton who can create a new coalition for the Republican party to give them the advantage electorally. Just like using the New Deal Coalition failed for Democrats spectacularly after LBJ and before Clinton except in 1976 when Carter only won because of Watergate because the Democrats until Clinton failed to realize that the New Deal Coalition was no longer Applicable during that time period. Likewise Nixon's Silent Majority Coalition will fail as it is no longer applicable.

I don't think Clinton created a new coalition so much as he averted the GOP advantage via voter outrage at the aftermath of Reaganite neoliberalism.

Wasnt Reagan quite popular as he did leave office with 63% approval rating

His final approval rating was an artificial response to a nasty presidential campaign; for most of 1988 Reagan was in the low fifties. Polling in the early 1990s showed that, while Reagan was credited on foreign affairs, his economic policies were generally blamed for the 1991-1992 recession. For example, a Gallup poll taken early in Bill Clinton's presidency asks "looking back, do you think the economic policies of Ronald Reagan were a success or a failure?" 61 percent said "failure." Here is said poll:

https://books.google.com/books?id=xTBPpYp55LsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gallup+1993&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nuPwVI3QNYe1ogTV_4HIDg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=economic%20policies&f=false

Reagan's legacy has been whitewashed due to his Alzheimer's and solidified by George W. Bush becoming the main target of the left.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Comparing the percentage Obama and Bush won in each state and seeing who did better in each state

Bush 275
Obama 263

This is stunning seeing that Obama won by a much bigger margin in 2012 then Bush did in 2004

IIRC this is exactly the map the Romney campaign was aiming for (plus NH), specifically because they thought demographics and turnout would either a.) hold at 2008 levels, but groups (especially whites independents) would swing away from Obama and give Romney a narrow victory, b.) demographics would return to 2004 levels and give Romney a big win, or c.) somewhere between the two, giving him a good-sized-but-not-huge win.

Decent strategy for Romney, there was really no other method he could have won by.

Republicans need their version of Bill Clinton who can create a new coalition for the Republican party to give them the advantage electorally. Just like using the New Deal Coalition failed for Democrats spectacularly after LBJ and before Clinton except in 1976 when Carter only won because of Watergate because the Democrats until Clinton failed to realize that the New Deal Coalition was no longer Applicable during that time period. Likewise Nixon's Silent Majority Coalition will fail as it is no longer applicable.

I don't think Clinton created a new coalition so much as he averted the GOP advantage via voter outrage at the aftermath of Reaganite neoliberalism.

Wasnt Reagan quite popular as he did leave office with 63% approval rating

His final approval rating was an artificial response to a nasty presidential campaign; for most of 1988 Reagan was in the low fifties. Polling in the early 1990s showed that, while Reagan was credited on foreign affairs, his economic policies were generally blamed for the 1991-1992 recession. For example, a Gallup poll taken early in Bill Clinton's presidency asks "looking back, do you think the economic policies of Ronald Reagan were a success or a failure?" 61 percent said "failure." Here is said poll:

https://books.google.com/books?id=xTBPpYp55LsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gallup+1993&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nuPwVI3QNYe1ogTV_4HIDg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=economic%20policies&f=false

Reagan's legacy has been whitewashed due to his Alzheimer's and solidified by George W. Bush becoming the main target of the left.

According to Gallup Reagan approval was 53% in 1993.

Also look at this

http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx

Go Down to the part where it says

"How do you think each of the following presidents will go down in history -- as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor?" (Gallup)

Finally I think that presidency accomplishments are overlooked by current problems so you cant really judge them until 10 years after the presidency. Look how hate Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman were when they left office  and now look at them now.

Oh and A recent study came ranking the presidents Reagan came #11 while Clinton came #9

[Sumner 1868]

Comparing the percentage Obama and Bush won in each state and seeing who did better in each state

Bush 275
Obama 263

This is stunning seeing that Obama won by a much bigger margin in 2012 then Bush did in 2004

IIRC this is exactly the map the Romney campaign was aiming for (plus NH), specifically because they thought demographics and turnout would either a.) hold at 2008 levels, but groups (especially whites independents) would swing away from Obama and give Romney a narrow victory, b.) demographics would return to 2004 levels and give Romney a big win, or c.) somewhere between the two, giving him a good-sized-but-not-huge win.

Decent strategy for Romney, there was really no other method he could have won by.

Republicans need their version of Bill Clinton who can create a new coalition for the Republican party to give them the advantage electorally. Just like using the New Deal Coalition failed for Democrats spectacularly after LBJ and before Clinton except in 1976 when Carter only won because of Watergate because the Democrats until Clinton failed to realize that the New Deal Coalition was no longer Applicable during that time period. Likewise Nixon's Silent Majority Coalition will fail as it is no longer applicable.

I don't think Clinton created a new coalition so much as he averted the GOP advantage via voter outrage at the aftermath of Reaganite neoliberalism.

Wasnt Reagan quite popular as he did leave office with 63% approval rating

His final approval rating was an artificial response to a nasty presidential campaign; for most of 1988 Reagan was in the low fifties. Polling in the early 1990s showed that, while Reagan was credited on foreign affairs, his economic policies were generally blamed for the 1991-1992 recession. For example, a Gallup poll taken early in Bill Clinton's presidency asks "looking back, do you think the economic policies of Ronald Reagan were a success or a failure?" 61 percent said "failure." Here is said poll:

https://books.google.com/books?id=xTBPpYp55LsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gallup+1993&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nuPwVI3QNYe1ogTV_4HIDg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=economic%20policies&f=false

Reagan's legacy has been whitewashed due to his Alzheimer's and solidified by George W. Bush becoming the main target of the left.

According to Gallup Reagan approval was 53% in 1993.

Also look at this

http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx

Go Down to the part where it says

"How do you think each of the following presidents will go down in history -- as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor?" (Gallup)

Finally I think that presidency accomplishments are overlooked by current problems so you cant really judge them until 10 years after the presidency. Look how hate Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman were when they left office  and now look at them now.

Oh and A recent study came ranking the presidents Reagan came #11 while Clinton came #9

My point still stands. The public have long held some sort of admiration for Reagan, which I don't share but acknowledge. I never said Reagan was unpopular, I said the public in the early 1990s hated Reaganomics, and polling suggests they did and thus turned to Democrats in 1992 as a response. Reagan's approval ratings did shot up even higher when he was publicly revealed to have Alzheimer's. The left have been far softer than him since Bush Jr, and thus allowed this whitewashing without much challenge, which the polling you offer reflect. Also, never forget that the Republican base is very united in praising Reagan.

On a side note, while you have a point with Truman, Wilson's reputation is clearly headed for a downward spiral once more.

[Sumner 1868]

Comparing the percentage Obama and Bush won in each state and seeing who did better in each state

Bush 275
Obama 263

This is stunning seeing that Obama won by a much bigger margin in 2012 then Bush did in 2004

IIRC this is exactly the map the Romney campaign was aiming for (plus NH), specifically because they thought demographics and turnout would either a.) hold at 2008 levels, but groups (especially whites independents) would swing away from Obama and give Romney a narrow victory, b.) demographics would return to 2004 levels and give Romney a big win, or c.) somewhere between the two, giving him a good-sized-but-not-huge win.

Decent strategy for Romney, there was really no other method he could have won by.

Republicans need their version of Bill Clinton who can create a new coalition for the Republican party to give them the advantage electorally. Just like using the New Deal Coalition failed for Democrats spectacularly after LBJ and before Clinton except in 1976 when Carter only won because of Watergate because the Democrats until Clinton failed to realize that the New Deal Coalition was no longer Applicable during that time period. Likewise Nixon's Silent Majority Coalition will fail as it is no longer applicable.

I don't think Clinton created a new coalition so much as he averted the GOP advantage via voter outrage at the aftermath of Reaganite neoliberalism.

Wasnt Reagan quite popular as he did leave office with 63% approval rating

His final approval rating was an artificial response to a nasty presidential campaign; for most of 1988 Reagan was in the low fifties. Polling in the early 1990s showed that, while Reagan was credited on foreign affairs, his economic policies were generally blamed for the 1991-1992 recession. For example, a Gallup poll taken early in Bill Clinton's presidency asks "looking back, do you think the economic policies of Ronald Reagan were a success or a failure?" 61 percent said "failure." Here is said poll:

https://books.google.com/books?id=xTBPpYp55LsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gallup+1993&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nuPwVI3QNYe1ogTV_4HIDg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=economic%20policies&f=false

Reagan's legacy has been whitewashed due to his Alzheimer's and solidified by George W. Bush becoming the main target of the left.

According to Gallup Reagan approval was 53% in 1993.

Also look at this

http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx

Go Down to the part where it says

"How do you think each of the following presidents will go down in history -- as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor?" (Gallup)

Finally I think that presidency accomplishments are overlooked by current problems so you cant really judge them until 10 years after the presidency. Look how hate Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman were when they left office  and now look at them now.

Oh and A recent study came ranking the presidents Reagan came #11 while Clinton came #9

My point still stands. The public have long held some sort of admiration for Reagan, which I don't share but acknowledge. I never said Reagan was unpopular, I said the public in the early 1990s hated Reaganomics, and polling suggests they did and thus turned to Democrats in 1992 as a response. Reagan's approval ratings did shot up even higher when he was publicly revealed to have Alzheimer's. The left have been far softer than him since Bush Jr, and thus allowed this whitewashing without much challenge, which the polling you offer reflect. Also, never forget that the Republican base is very united in praising Reagan.

On a side note, while you have a point with Truman, Wilson's reputation is clearly headed for a downward spiral once more.

It seems like everything he did is now unpopular.

Federal reserve- is now just a scapegoat for anything that goes wrong in the economy

Racial issues- Well actually Wilson was horrible on this so I agree with the negative assessments

Internationalism- This may actually be at its lowest popularity since 1941.

Restriction of Civil Liberties- Has became unpopular in recent years.

And the cherry on top- Prohibition.