Did you guys know that only 5 incumbent presidents have not won a 2nd term in history? Why is this? Here is some history: George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992. Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980. Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Herbert Hoover lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. William Taft lost to Woodrow Wilson in 1912. Why is this? It's because the president doesn't have any power. As soon as a new president is sworn in, the secret society, the corporations, and the oil companies tell him what he is to do and not to do and coach him on how to be their puppet. It's in the secret society's best interest to keep the current president in there because he's already been trained to their standards. Right now this secret society has Obama trained just they way they want and they are doing everything they can to make sure he wins enough of those swing states EVEN if they have to rig the election. What happens if you go against the secret society? Ask Kennedy. Here is his speech about removing secret societies from the USA. A chilling speech and we all know what happened to him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces
Without Ross Perot, HW might have won a 2nd term. Without Teddy Roosevelt, Taft would have won a 2nd term.
Sorry. Without Ross Perot wouldn't matter. Bush I lost all credibility with the electorate when he raised taxes. Clinton would have still won going away. And once again, Sorry. If it weren't for TDR, there wouldn't have been a Taft at all. Same scenario as daddy Bush. Both men should have carried on what their predecessors started. They veered away....and bam....gonzo. Now, ask yourself, did Obama build on Clinton's platform by uniting the parties and balancing the budget after running on that campaign theme against Bush and framing McCain as a Bush surrogate??? No, he veered hard left and presided over economic and fiscal failure and 4 years of political gridlock. Obama is done. About the only promise that Obama is going to keep is his promise to be a one-termer. And he didn't want to keep that one either. He's done.
Clinton/Bush would have been a close race without Perot. 1992 was when the Republican party killed itself. If there was a two term limit, Teddy couldn't have ran against Taft.
Close doesn't matter. Clinton won going away. He would have beat Bush head to head. Bush LOST the election because he veered away from a very, very key issue. He raised taxes. You might as well elect the democrat if you are going to have a Republican in office raising taxes. Clinton would have beat him like a drum head-to-head. Once again, Teddy wouldn't have mattered. Teddy ran third party to try to salvage progress. Taft left the platform after he was elected. Teddy had no choice. He was trying to salvage the election. He knew Taft had NO CHANCE. If he hadn't ran third party, Taft would have gotten slaughtered anyways.
We've been through this a bunch of times and every time this kind of statement is proven wrong. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=3679305&postcount=34
I simply disagree. That is a huge amount of voters to expect to stay at home. By the time the election rolled around, Perot had no chance. Exit polling is sketchy at best. I also think you can't discount what 2 opponents attacking an incumbent instead of 1 can have on an election.
I got an encyclopedia salesman buddy o' mine, John John Quincy Martin Van John Fillmore Pierce Buchanan Johnson Harrison, who might disagree with you.
