Which President reelection looked the most Bleak after their first midterm
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2024, 04:24:01 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Which President reelection looked the most Bleak after their first midterm
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Vote
#1
Carter after 1978
 
#2
Reagan after 1982
 
#3
Bush SR after 1990
 
#4
Clinton after 1994
 
#5
Bush Jr after 2002
 
#6
Obama after 2010
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 68

Author Topic: Which President reelection looked the most Bleak after their first midterm  (Read 5315 times)
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2015, 05:59:42 PM »

Carter after 1978.  Trajectory matters most of all.
Logged
MIKESOWELL
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 535
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2015, 07:32:50 PM »
« Edited: August 02, 2015, 07:34:34 PM by MIKESOWELL »

  I concur with the majority here. Clinton looked toast in November 1994. People must recall that Whitewater was still relevant then. Rush Limbaugh had a daily countdown of the number of days left in the Clinton administration. This was the first time that the Republicans had significant control of the House and Senate in 42 years. This was the first election where the Republicans won a majority of the popular vote (midterm) in 48 years. Clinton was polling 39 percent approval by this date. He was being deemed a failure by many, including some in his own party. The comeback in 1996 was indeed remarkable and added to his mystique.

  Also, Perot did not help Clinton. Voter malaise and Perot's presence on the national ticket actually hurt Clinton. Instead of polling 49.2 percent nationally in 1996, he may have polled something like 54 to 55 percent without these factors.
Logged
Kevin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,424
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2015, 07:54:15 PM »

I'd prob agree with Clinton but also I'd add Obama in there too.
Logged
m4567
Rookie
**
Posts: 220
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2015, 10:53:41 PM »
« Edited: August 02, 2015, 10:55:39 PM by m4567 »

I can't decide between Clinton and Reagan. Reagan had a huge recession going on. Clinton looked really weak, but the economy was good in 1994.
Logged
MIKESOWELL
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 535
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2015, 12:57:24 PM »

Nope. Most of Perot's voters were white and the 2000 exit polls showed that most of them would have voted for Dole in a two-way race.

  I don't buy that argument that Perot cost Bush the election in 1992, nor that Perot hurt Dole in 1996. Even if the overwhelming majority of Perot's votes were from whites, polls usually showed that at best Bush and Dole would have received a plurality to a small majority of Perot's votes, not a huge majority. Even if Dole won 60 percent of Perot's total vote, Clinton's popular majority would still have soared to 53 percent. That still keeps the anemic vote total in place. That is why I stated that if these factors were not in place, 54 to 55 percent of the vote may have been achievable.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,122
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 03, 2015, 01:40:19 PM »

Truman in 1946.
Logged
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,527


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 04, 2015, 09:46:43 PM »

If we're going back that far, Truman '46 is a pretty solid answer because there was essentially no precedent for victory back then.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 06, 2015, 12:50:27 AM »

Ford in '74 looked worse than Truman in '46.  Going back further, Cleveland (who planned to run for a third term) in 1894 probably looked the worst.
Logged
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,527


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2015, 08:44:27 PM »

If we're going back that far, Truman '46 is a pretty solid answer because there was essentially no precedent for victory back then.
Taft, 1910

Uh...Taft lost.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 13 queries.