The Anti-Obama

Newsweek:

The parallels between the 1990s and today should offer only so much comfort for the Republicans, Barbour says, particularly on the presidential level. The year 2012 won’t be an easy one for the GOP. After all, “the predisposition of voters” is to reelect a president.

No.  Not really.  Let’s look at the last 40 years:

  • Ford: One term
  • Carter: One term
  • Reagan: Two terms
  • Bush 41: One term
  • Clinton: Two terms
  • Bush 43: Two terms

By my count, that’s three one termers and three two termers.  Don’t be fooled because the last two happened to be two termers.  We don’t have any sort of “predisposition” to reelect presidents.  Congressmen benefit from incumbency; presidents, not so much. Even over the history of the presidency, it’s about 5 one termers to 2 two-termers.

None of this means that it’s a Republican lock in 2012, but I don’t think it is any sort of uphill climb.

2 Comments

  1. I think Bush 41 could easily have been a two term president – he screwed up with the read-my-lips thing. Obama has multiples of that. Plus, he’s not a fast learner – he’s continued to make the same mistakes over and over while his delivered-on-a-silver-platter sky high approvals are tanking.

  2. mexigogue says:

    Bush I. was undone by Ross Perot. If I remember Clinton was elected by a plurality, not a majority, and he wouldn’t even have had that except Perot voters were mostly people who would have voted for Bush.