November 6th, 2012

[gdanaher]

In recent times, Truman beat Dewey by only a bit, but folks were voting for and not against at the time. Eisenhower defeated Stevenson primarily because he was a winning war general of enormous fame, and Stevenson wasn't. The problem with Ike after he got to office was a) his health (too many cigarettes for too many years) and then those pesky heart attacks, and b) he had been a general after all, and generals give orders and soldiers follow them. He never figured out how Washington operated in respect to this. On the upside, he kept the Russians guessing because he was just crazy enough to drop one on them and they knew it, and he did recall how the German Reichautobahn system was able to ferry troops and material quickly and double as landing strips.

You young folks won't remember or know this, but as much as you hate Carter now, it seems that everyone voted for him because after the Nixon-Agnew-Ford debacle, the nation was looking for a simple person with simple untainted values, and they found him in Georgia. He won by 57 electoral votes over Ford. His luck at timing was about as keen as that of Hoover.

[UpTheIrons]

In my *heart* I think Obama *may* squeak it out. Already the subtext of all the (R) talking heads is "Let Obama win - that way he'll take the blame for the economy continuing to tank, then the chosen (R) can breeze to victory in 2016!" That way, there's damage control for a loss, and they can focus on Senate and House wins to blunt Obama's reelection.

Shortsighted, of course, but it's not a bad strategy for those who live election to election. Honestly, is there anything about any of these clowns that gets you to stand up and cheer? Put them all in the blender and run what comes out through a "stupid remover strainer" and you may have a decent candidate. Right now, I can't believe some of what comes out of their mouths!

TANGENT!
On the continued 'discussion' about those voting 3rd party: In Texas we may be a bit spoiled. It is already a foregone conclusion that the (R) candidate will win Texas' electoral votes, so more people have the 'luxury' of expressing their true feelings (and voting 'for' someone instead of 'against' the incumbent) - even if that is for a 3rd party candidate.

I am personally in that place right now. I "know" Texas will go (R), but if too many people "know" that, it could tip the balance the wrong way. Therefore, I'm still firmly on the fence about voting 'against' Obama with the designated (R) guy, or voting 'for' someone else.

[Hoosier Daddy]

I am personally in that place right now. I "know" Texas will go (R), but if too many people "know" that, it could tip the balance the wrong way. Therefore, I'm still firmly on the fence about voting 'against' Obama with the designated (R) guy, or voting 'for' someone else.

Maybe losing a ship load of votes to a third part is what the republicans need in the long run to get back on track but like you said, lots of voters live election to election and don't think long term.