John McCain for President Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : John McCain for President

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Zoltan! who wrote (318)	2/20/2000 5:36:00 AM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) of 6579

In the event you still do not comprehend my original point, I will make it even simpler for you. You say Bush and Ford were turned out of office because of their supposedly moderate views. I have pointed out that incumbency isn't what it used to be--that there is an increased tendency in modern politics to oust the incumbent. I will start with 1932, to give us an almost 70 year frame of reference: 1932--incumbent Hoover loses. 1936--incumbent Roosevelt wins. 1940--incumbent Rooosevelt wins. 1944--incumbent Roosevelt wins. 1948--incumbent Truman wins. 1952--no incumbent. 1956--incumbent Eisenhower wins. 1960--no incumbent. 1964--incumbent Johnson wins. 1968--incumbent Johnson forced not to run by popular opinion. 1972--incumbent Nixon wins. 1976--incumbent Ford loses. 1984--incumbent Reagan wins. 1992--incumbent Bush loses. 1996--incumbent Clinton wins. So, from 1932-64, incumbents score 6 wins, and 1 loss. From 1968-96, incumbents score 3 wins and 3 losses (I count Johnson as a 1968 loser, because he was effectively turned out of office). Big difference. Supports my point that Bush and Ford were victims of an ever more restless post-Vietnam electorate, not moderate policies.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next