Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (318)	2/20/2000 4:26:00 AM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6579

Ford would likely have won had not Reagan gone against the wishes of almost every Republican governor, and severely weakened an incumbent President of his own party. Did not the California state Republican chairman disavow his efforts? Ford was punished for the economy, for pardoning Nixon, for a perception (reinforced by the Reagan campaign) that he was mentally deficient. I believe, although I greatly admire Reagan, that his misguided 1976 race elected James Earl Carter, not Ford's moderation. Besides, Reagan knew he could run again in 1980 (although age would be a factor). His 1976 broadside against Ford was worse than feckless; it was harmful to the party. Ford's razor-thin victory at the Republican convention that year left him enervated in the face of a united Democrat party. But you say Reagan was right to buck the establishment in 1976. The establishment was wrong, you seem to say, in supporting a weak candidate like Ford, where a warrior like Reagan would have been better. Sounds like your reasoning supports the establishment-bucking McCain, as opposed to GWB.

To: Zoltan! who wrote (318)	2/20/2000 4:48:00 AM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6579

>>Your newest version now undoes your original point, because fully half the Presidents of the last 25 years that ran for re-election have indeed won re-election. << Fully half? Now who is the moron? 25 years brings us back to early 1975, correct Einstein? 1976--incumbent Ford loses. 1980--incumbent Carter loses 1984--incumbent Reagan wins. 1992--incumbent Bush loses. 1996--incumbent Clinton wins. That's 5 races, and 3 incumbent losses. Fully half, requires 2.5 wins, and 2.5 losses. But we have 3 losses. Is it your low IQ that led you to this error? Or are you resorting to trickery to make a point by excluding Ford since he was technically not running for re-election? My example went back approximately 30 years--why have you shortened it to 25? Another trick? And my original example, with which you take issue, had to do with turning incumbent Presidents out of office; you now mischaracterize my point by claiming I was talking about re-election. But I guess I must accustom myself to being misquoted by you. No wonder you so easily resort to name-calling and nitpicking; you've so little else in your armamentarium.

To: Zoltan! who wrote (318)	2/20/2000 5:36:00 AM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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.