Remember What I Told you about Obama 4 Years Ago?

[Sasquatch]

I typo'ed. It should read UNemployment as high employment would surely be a good thing, haha.

"Stagflation" is a made-up word that has become mainstream -- a combination of "stagnation" (as the economy becomes stagnant) and "inflation".

So it is literally boiling down to a debate of the lesser of two evils then?

It nearly always does. For the most part, many voters don't go to the polls to support their favorite candidate, they go to vote against their least-favorite candidate. For instance, when I voted for Bush (or, more recently, McCain), it wasn't because I liked him. Hell no. It was because I disliked him much less than I disliked the only other option.

The same situation will occur this election, as it does every election. From the votes that Obama and Romney get from people who actually like them, they will get more from those who dislike their opponent more.

I mean Obama isn't a very liberal Democrat but from what I could grasp he basically ran unopposed through the 2012 primaries.

Obama is an extremely liberal Democrat.

And he ran unopposed because he is the incumbent. He already has the position, and the incumbent is more likely to retain their seat, so the Democrats won't have to worry about choosing a new candidate (Hillary?) until next election.

It's extremely rare that an incumbent wouldn't win the nomination again. They would have to do things that lose the vote of their constituency -- not "horrible" things per se, just things that would make him lose enough votes to offset the votes gained by incumbency (see: Franklin Pierce).

Marty, George Bush Sr. was re-elected a second term.

Let me introduce you to a website.

WWW.GOOGLE.COM

It's amazing, technology nowdays. You can just type something in, and it will bring up web pages with the answer. Like say, "presidents who lost reelection". And then you can take the answer you find there and learn it, instead of being caught saying something extremely stupid like "there has never been a president in history that ran for a second term and lost".

Like I said before, there has never been a president in history that ran for a second term and lost. The closest was Bush Jr. when it came to them having to re-count the Florida ballots. Or was that satire and I'm missing the joke?

It has happened nine times. It wasn't satire or a joke at all, but it still went way over your head.

completely my bad I was thrown off by his Vice presidency from 81-89.

So you thought he served three terms?

funny thing though, it was because I remember watching the news during the 2004 ballot counting in Florida and the commentators were making a big deal saying if Bush Jr. wasn't re-elected it would be a 1st time ever a president losing a 2nd term vote

No, you don't.

See, you don't remember watching during the 2004 Florida recount because there was no 2004 Florida recount. The big deal Kerry tried to pull out of his ass in 2004 was Ohio, not Florida. The Florida recount was Gore's attempt to steal electorates in 2000.

And you don't remember commentators saying anything about Bush being possibly the first ever Presidential incumbent to lose reelection, because it had happened -- say it with me now -- nine times before.

[Martin]

"Stagflation" is a made-up word that has become mainstream -- a combination of "stagnation" (as the economy becomes stagnant) and "inflation".

Not as far as my usage of it is. It was used primarily to describe the Carter years as it's a recognised economic term in academic circles. Aren't most words made up these days?

It nearly always does. For the most part, many voters don't go to the polls to support their favorite candidate, they go to vote against their least-favorite candidate. For instance, when I voted for Bush (or, more recently, McCain), it wasn't because I liked him. Hell no. It was because I disliked him much less than I disliked the only other option.

The same situation will occur this election, as it does every election. From the votes that Obama and Romney get from people who actually like them, they will get more from those who dislike their opponent more.

Obama is an extremely liberal Democrat.

And he ran unopposed because he is the incumbent. He already has the position, and the incumbent is more likely to retain their seat, so the Democrats won't have to worry about choosing a new candidate (Hillary?) until next election.

It's extremely rare that an incumbent wouldn't win the nomination again. They would have to do things that lose the vote of their constituency -- not "horrible" things per se, just things that would make him lose enough votes to offset the votes gained by incumbency (see: Franklin Pierce).

I don't think he's extremely liberal really. There's been more liberal statesmen in my country and France than Obama is - I'd agree he's more than most of your other Presidents though. But he didn't run entirely unopposed - those that did failed miserably though.