Poll: Who wins in 2012? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 10:14:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Poll: Who wins in 2012? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which party wins the White House in 2012?
#1
Democrat
 
#2
Republican
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 57

Author Topic: Poll: Who wins in 2012?  (Read 14132 times)
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
« on: November 06, 2009, 04:46:45 PM »

Incumbents have won 13 of the last 18 elections (which goes back to 1900). Losers:

1. William Howard Taft -- temperamentally unsuited to the Presidency.

2. Herbert Hoover -- messed-up economy.

3. Gerald Ford -- entered the Presidency through the back door and was barely defeated in his re-election bid.

4. Jimmy Carter --  Hard luck, bad economy and the Iranian hostage situation. Got caught in a political transition from the Sough voting Democratic as a block one last time to a norm in which the South usually voted Republican. An independent candidate drew away voters who would never have voted for Ronald Reagan.

5. George H. W. Bush -- he had no idea of what to do with the Presidency in a second term.

Heck, George W. Bush and Calvin Coolidge got re-elected despite two of the weakest Presidencies ever... Obama is a much stronger President than either of those.

Uhh, Calvin Coolidge had a weak presidency? If you mean non-active then you have a point, but he definitely wasn't anywhere as loathed as Bush was. Hell, he won 54% of the popular vote against two other candidates while doing almost no campaigning.
Nice attempt at hiding your bias by using pseudointellectual type btw. You almost had me going until you said that Jimmy Carter, the only Democrat out of those five, lost due to "hard luck" while everyone else sucked.
Again, nice try.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2009, 04:50:44 PM »

I predict a realignment election. Despite what some people may think 2008 was not a realignment at all, merely just a reaction against the Bush years. The real change will be in 2012, regarding the situation of the GOP. Does that mean the GOP will win in 2012? I don't know, but I predict that in 2012 the American political landscape will be different than it is now.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2009, 06:20:15 PM »

The dangerous 1915 KKK reached its peak during the second term of Calvin Coolidge.  

Your logic here fails so hard.
This is just as pathetic as what I've seen from many blowhard far right conservatives. I mean really pbrower, I didn't expect such a fail of an argument to be used by you.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about to put it into better perspective:

Nazi Germany reached its peak during the second and third terms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Just because Group X grows the most while Leader A leads B country doesn't mean that Leader A is most responsible for the growth of Group X.

Here's another example (a bit more fun):

Progressive Rock reached its peak during Nixon's second term.
See, those two have little to do with each other, yet this is the kind of argument you are employing in the quote. The idea that Richard Nixon was responsible for the popularity of Progressive Rock is crazy, so is the idea that Calvin Coolidge is responsible for the rise of the KKK.

I tell you if James Cox or John W. Davis were presidents during this era the KKK would be just as strong, if not stronger (if Davis was president). I am not denying that the KKK was popular amongst Republicans in the Midwest, but their strength at the time was due to environment and not just because one guy sat in the Oval Office. The president is not f***ing god and can not dictate the direction of society, there are other factors present.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2009, 08:18:11 PM »

Wake up call for pbrower:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If anything the KKK would consider Coolidge closer to the Anti-christ than a help.

Now let's contrast that to Almighty FDR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

Enough said.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2009, 12:54:36 AM »

Maybe not the President, but certainly the political culture. During the 1920s, productivity rose faster than wages. Such itself creates increasing economic inequality, and in the end the super-rich who get the gains can't spend enough to prevent the decline of the economy.  Much the same happened in this decade; in the 1920s the cause of productivity outstripping wages was  the electrification of factories; in this decade it was the use of computers that  made business able to do more work with fewer employees. As a symptom of the trend the Gini coefficient (a measure of economic inequality) for income in the US rose to the high 40s, the highest that it had been since... 1929!
The blame for the initial stock market crash lies squarely upon the Federal Reserve. Coolidge is only guilty insofar as he failed to abolish the Fed.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Hmm, is this Jeopardy? Who is Roosevelt? Or is it Lincoln?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
They were also both fascistic totalitarian megalomaniacs who started wars that killed lots of people.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Yes, really. Thanks for the Wikipedia link making it apparent you don't think for yourself.

What's wrong with relying upon Wikipedia for objective treatment of history? What is my alternative -- to rely upon my own authority? I have no such authority.

Does anyone have a problem with the idea that Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower were two of our better peacetime Presidents and that Calvin Coolidge was not one of the best? I well know that there is some controversy, but nobody is going to claim that Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan are among the greatest Presidents.  

Yet this list also has Woodrow Wilson in the top ten...........
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2009, 05:13:23 AM »

What's wrong with relying upon Wikipedia for objective treatment of history?

Because an article on Wikipedia about a survey is not an "objective treatment of history".

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
At least you are aware of your own ignorance.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Yes, I do. Dwight Eisenhower was mediocre and Theodore Roosevelt sucked big-time. Calvin Coolidge was better than either of them.

I love how pbrower conveniently leaves out the fact that Eisenhower and Roosevelt had hardons for military interventionism in other nations. Roosevelt got aroused by the thought of sending our navy around the world just to get all the other bitch nations wet for our seacocks of death. And Eisenhower, don't even get me started on how "peaceful" a president he was.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.029 seconds with 15 queries.