Ok, Einstein,,,

JFKs poll numbers were in the toilet when his head exploded. LBJ was a criminal that dug us deep in Vietnam and knew he had no chance..
Carter,well we all about him..

And Clinton co-opted the Republican platform to get re-elected...

A Ham sandwich could beat Obama now...


count on it,,,


wheel,,[whip]

wheelrite wrote:

Four more years!

HockeyDad wrote:

Wrong name, right tribe.

I'm sorry that I responded to what your words said instead of what you meant. Couldn't read your mind, just your point. It wasn't an opinion on who is good/bad, just a correction of the facts as messed up by you.

Let's recap: You clearly stated it is easy to OUST a Dem incumbent, I pointed out that in the time frame YOU chose for your incorrect statement that it has been the other party in the lead of that dubious distinction. Once for Dems, twice for Reps. Not easy to oust any incumbent, which was what I had said, your reply is still wrong. Case closed.

frankj1 wrote:

Four more years!

HockeyDad wrote:

Your're really dense...

Be so kind as to list all the incumbents re-elected in American History,their party affilliation and enlighten us all...

And ,Queen Elizabeth's Uncle abdicated the Throne does that make a difference..

[-x

wheelrite wrote:

wow. you were wrong so I'm dense because I pointed it out.

Using your choice of the last 60 or so years to predict what is likely to happen wasn't good enough? You don't want to go with your own selected frame of reference? Post another "fact" and maybe I'll agree with it.

In my lifetime, and in yours, it has not been easy to vote out an incumbent. Now, if it makes you feel better, it certainly could happen again, and maybe it should, but that's off subject.

Last time, Wheel, cuz it's getting tedious. I say it has been an extremely rare occurence (3 times exactly) that it has happened in a presidential election. This translates into a tremendous advantage to the incumbent. Do you disagree with that simple statement? Cuz all we have are historical facts from the six decades you referenced. That's our generation, that's how we roll.

Einstein, out.

frankj1 wrote:

Whether you agree with me it matters not...
What Dem incumbents have been re-elected to their 2nd term other than Clinton and FDR ?

But,
Obviuosly Republican incumbents have a better re-election record since FDR..

So,Obama has history against him...

sorry,the facts don't lie...

wheelrite wrote:

No, facts do not lie, but these weren't the facts I replied to originally. It was your "fact" that it has been easy to beat a Dem incumbent since FDR and then tried to muddy the waters with misdirection. Anyway,

I'm gonna hate myself in the morning but...

Truman was reelected after finishing FDR's last term. He was an incumbent. a sitting president. Did not run again but did not lose an attempt at reelection.

Johnson was reelected after finishing Kennedy's term (the one you said Kennedy had no shot to win, yet Johnson the "criminal" won). Johnson was the incumbent, a sitting president. Did not run again but did not lose an attempt at reelection.

In the same situation as above Ford, a sitting president, lost in an attempt at reelection.

Dude, I did not divide the incumbent question into parties, you did. All I said was incumbents are difficult to beat. The only facts that relate to that are that one dem and 2 rep incumbents have lost since FDR. I think that tends to support me, you know, if only factually.

Whatever you're drinking is making you angry.

Oh yeah, and my real real point was that I think Newt takes the nomination, but loses in the finals.

frankj1 wrote:

Ok,
Veeps that finish a term of a deceased or a Pres that resigned and get re-elected have not been re-elected to a 2nd term,,,

And Incumbent Dems are not difficult to beat when running for a 2nd term.

Clinton is the only one since FDR. Republican incumbents have a MUCH better record of re-election.

Therefore, history tells us that Obama will likely lose...

If you don't get it now..

you're hopeless...

wheelrite wrote:

just out of curiosity, do you think Newt takes the nomination, as I do? That's the post we disrupted. That was Jack's post, Newt rising.

And therefore you would believe he is our next president?

frankj1 wrote:

That's no way to talk about the current POTUS.

dpnewell wrote:

no savior on the horizon. sad for us, good for globalists.

frankj1 wrote:

Like him or not. Is there anyone in this race that is remotely as qualified as Newt? I think he beats Obama after a couple of debates, especially if Obama doesn't want to debate him after a couple of embarrassing defeats. All they will have left is the personal attacks on Newt's character. This is where things could get ugly, given Newt's personal life history.

stogiemonger wrote:

What character? Newt's an undisputed grade A douchebag. He's not only morally/personally corrupt. He's a professional douche whose latest accomplishment come to light is taking million plus $ bribes...er consulting fees... from Freddie Mac to influence the republican party to go easy on them.

Newt is the reincarnation of Warren G. Harding.

pdxstogieman wrote:

What character? Newt's an undisputed grade A douchebag. He's not only morally/personally corrupt. He's a professional douche whose latest accomplishment come to light is taking million plus $ bribes...er consulting fees... from Freddie Mac to influence the republican party to go easy on them.

Newt is the reincarnation of Warren G. Harding.

pdxstogieman wrote:

character?

undisputed grade A douchebag.

morally/personally corrupt.

Promoted from "grade A" to professional douche.

taking bribes or as you call them consulting fees...from Freddie Mac


Sounds like someone you'd vote for!

Hell, it even sounds like our current PRESidENT!!![frypan]

DrMaddVibe wrote: