Why the 2004 election and 2012 election were really similer

[OSR stands with Israel]

Both president inherited Crises in their beginning of their admistration(Bush 9/11, Obama- Housing Market Collapse)

Both Presidents were extremely popular in their first couple years and approval had started to go down after their 3rd year

The opposing party had nominated candidates who were known as flip flopers and moved their positions significantly to the left or right to win the primary and back to the center after being nominated

Both Bush and Obama put up a strong convention compared to the other's party weak convention to take a solid lead

Both Bush and Obama used the crises they inherited in the beginning of the presidency to attack the other candidate( Bush- That mindset led to 9/11, Obama - Those policies caused the worst Recession since the Depression)

Both Obama and Bush had controversial actions in the presidency which polarized the nation( Bush- Invasion of Iraq, Obama- Obama Care, Huge Increase in Domestic Spending)

Both Obama and Bush lost their significant leads due to a horrendous first debate

Both Cheney and Biden stopped Kerry and Romney's Momentum at the Vice Presidential Debates

Both Kerry and Romney failed to capitalize on Bush and Obama's first debate due to poor 2nd and third debates

Both Obama and Bush had approval a little less then 50 %

 the other parties voters shows up in record numbers and huge enthusiasm  to defeat Obama and Bush

Despite that Bush and Obama win with 51% of the vote

[Thunderbird is the word]

 Both Kerry and Romney's bases were absolutely convinced that they were going to win prior to Election Day and both used flawed methodology to back their arguments, I remember the weekend before the 04 election a popular theory emerging on left-wing blogs that liberals were more likely to only have cell phones which weren't polled and as a result the polls were skewed against Kerry.

[Sumner 1868]

There are indeed several similarities. But here's some key differences:

-Whereas voters preferred Kerry on domestic issues by a healthy margin, Romney was not viewed positively in foreign or domestic affairs.

-There was no "main" issue in 2004, to the point that gay marriage may well have shifted the election. In 2012, it was about the economy, despite some hackish nonsense about abortion/Benghazi.

-Voter turnout decreased from 57% to 54% between 2008 and 2012. Turnout increased between 2000 and 2004 from barely 50% to 55%.

-Third parties did well in 2012, whereas in 2004 "anybody but Bush" lead many who generally voted third party to vote for Kerry.

-Kerry never made a gaffe as major as the 47% Romney spoke of.

Actually, Bush won 50% of the vote, with Kerry at 48%.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Both Kerry and Romney's bases were absolutely convinced that they were going to win prior to Election Day and both used flawed methodology to back their arguments, I remember the weekend before the 04 election a popular theory emerging on left-wing blogs that liberals were more likely to only have cell phones which weren't polled and as a result the polls were skewed against Kerry.

At least one Bush supporter was convinced Bush was going to lose.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=12005.0

[moderatevoter]

Both challengers were from Massachusetts too.

[Sumner 1868]

Both challengers were from Massachusetts too.

America does not like rich white male politicians from Massachusetts with slick hair

JFK

Well, no, given he probably won because of vote fraud...

[Podgy the Bear]

Overall, the election results from 2004 and 2012 are not too different from previous elections

1932 and 1936    FDR ran somewhat stronger nationally in 1936--picking up four of the six states he barely lost in 1932.   It did change considerably for the 1940 election.

1952 and 1956    Almost no change there

1980 and 1984    Reagan did make significant inroads in the rural South and made the states solid for the Republicans after that

1992 and 1996    Again, almost no change

When times are good (or not horrible) or there is no third party, elections will generally favor the incumbent.  Which is why 1932, 1980, and 1992 tossed out the incumbent--and 1968 forced out LBJ.  Of course, the exception to this would be Harry Truman's win in 1948 over Dewey, Wallace, and Thurmond.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Both Massachusetts opponents picked a young member of Congress from a state that leaned towards the other party as a running mate, but ultimately failed to carry their state (and probably only made it slightly closer than it would've otherwise been).

[JonathanSwift]

Both Massachusetts opponents picked a young member of Congress from a state that leaned towards the other party as a running mate, but ultimately failed to carry their state (and probably only made it slightly closer than it would've otherwise been).

In addition, both incumbent VPs were older than their Presidents, and both hailed from safe states with 3 electoral votes.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I'll add one, both Kerry and Romney had animal stories which were originally told to make them look decisive but just came off looking creepy. Obviously Romney's was worse, he tied his dog to the roof of the car and Kerry giving COR to licorice the hamster.

[Blair]

Both challengers were from Massachusetts too.

America does not like rich white male politicians from Massachusetts with slick hair

JFK

Well, no, given he probably won because of vote fraud...

I'm calling bollocks on this, after actually researching it the 'JFK brought the election' idea is largely based on outdated smears about his father, and there's a reason the nixon campaign didn't want a recount-plenty of evidence that Nixon's side was up for some dodgy antics

[Mr. Smith]

Both challengers were from Massachusetts too.

America does not like rich white male politicians from Massachusetts with slick hair

JFK

Well, no, given he probably won because of vote fraud...

I'm calling bollocks on this, after actually researching it the 'JFK brought the election' idea is largely based on outdated smears about his father, and there's a reason the nixon campaign didn't want a recount-plenty of evidence that Nixon's side was up for some dodgy antics

That explains California.

[SingingAnalyst]

Most of the discussion appears centered on Obama-Bush similarities (they both won) and Kerry-Romney similarities (they both lost). I think the nore salient point is that a net swing of just 3% of voters changed a 50-48 GOP win into a 51-47 Dem win. Nearly every state voted similar in 2004 and 2012, even those that changed from Bush to Obama. What I find intriguing is the handful of areas that swung more Republican from 2004 to 2012: Massachusetts, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and perhaps a handful of others.