I'll look him in the face, tell him how much I'm so very proud of him, hug him and shed some tears.

That's how much it warms my heart.

But there is another kicker to this as well....the following is the rest of the quote:

"It pains me to say that, to put him in with those other three, but it's a fact." Bill Kristol

Can it get any better?

Too bad Kristol.. Roosevelt and Eisenhower would have liked Obama.

and his ilk are now

...

it does

I guess that was before senility awareness week

And knowing it chaps the GOP's hide something awful is a bonus.

Especially in this era, where it is much more difficult to win big elections compared to generations ago.

1992-Clinton 43%

1996-Clinton 49%



2000-Bush 48%*

2004-Bush 51%


1912-Wilson 42%
1916-Wilson 49%



*Lost popular vote but still won the Presidency


Since 1900, Nixon was also elected twice.

1968-43%
1972-61%

Everyone else was either a one term President, (Bush Sr., Carter, Ford, LBJ, Truman, Roosevelt(Teddy), Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover,) or died in office (Kennedy).

Although it should be noted that Kennedy only had 49.7% of the vote during his election in 1960. So only rounding would make him eligible for this very exclusive club assuming he won re-election in 1964, which was very much in doubt.


As everyone can see, Obama now belongs in a very exclusive historic club in United States Presidential History.

Must look that one up.

"The election results put Nixon in the White House, but under inauspicious circumstances. The third-party candidacy of George Wallace left Nixon with only 43 percent of the vote, hardly a popular mandate. Nixon received 31.7 million popular votes (301 electoral votes); Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic candidate, won 30.8 million votes (191 electoral votes); and Wallace's American Independent party drew 9.4 million votes (46 electoral votes). Nixon won what political scientists call a deviating election—that is, one in which the advantage in party identification remains with the party that lost the election. In Congress, Democrats enjoyed a 57-43 advantage in the Senate and a 243-192 advantage in the House, with Republicans picking up just five House seats to go along with their gain of six in the Senate. Nixon would face a Congress controlled by the opposition and could not rely on a party-based legislative strategy. Instead, he would have to put together shifting coalitions: sometimes center-right, linking most Republicans with the southern Democrats to pay off his debts to the South or to support his foreign policies, and sometimes center-left, with moderate Republicans joining liberal Democrats to pass his own version of modern and progressive Republican social welfare, economic, and environmental legislation. At least in domestic affairs, the Nixon presidency promised to be eclectic and unorthodox.

Read more: http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/Richard-M-Nixon-The-1968-presidential-contest.html#ixzz2BxvyfKAN

Republican-Richard M. Nixon/Spiro Agnew 43.4%

Democratic -Hubert H. Humphrey/Edmund Muskie 42.7%

American Independent-George Wallace/Curtis LeMay 13.5%


1968 was one of the closest Presidential elections in American history. It is not remembered as a close race because Nixon held an advantage in the electoral college. But as you can see, it was a very tight election. There were multiple states that could have gone either way by just a few votes. This loss was agonizing for Humphrey and the Democrats. Many thought they flat out blew the election.

For Nixon it was considered revenge, because he thought he had won the election in 1960 that was also absurdly close. In fact there are some historians that have taken a second look at that race and now believe Nixon may have been the popular vote winner against John F. Kennedy in 1960.

1960 official results
Kennedy 49.7%
Nixon 49.5%



As I said before, what Obama has accomplished in the last 4.5 years is truly a historic and rare accomplishment in Presidential history.

and Bush II only did it once, in 2004....remember he lost the popular vote in 2000.

I believe in 1901.

heard on the radio the other day.

President Obama is now our third President in a row to be elected to two terms. This has only happened once before in our history. You have to go all the way back to Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe to find three 2-term presidents in a row.

Thought that was interesting.

That Adams were the bookends and both of them were one term presidents.

Jeb Bush would be Obama's successor

Both Bushs would have been one term presidents.

That way the second wouldn't have been a one term president until after 8 years of Gore and 16 years of two other presidents.

It would still be another 12 years before George W. Bush served his one term. No way Cheney is around that long.

Here is a list of all of the Presidents from 1900 to 2012.

Over that time span we have had 19 Presidents. (20 if you count Mckinley who was President from 1896-1901)

8 were 2 term Presidents

12 were 1 term Presidents

Only 4 were 2 term Presidents winning more than 50% of the popular vote both times

Amazingly 2 Presidents (Clinton/Wilson) were 2 term Presidents without winning a majority of the popular vote even once.

I also find it interesting regarding how little correlation there is between a huge popular vote win and whether or not you are a 2 term President or even a successful President.

For instance, LBJ was elected with 61% of the popular vote. It was one of the biggest landslides ever. But he was a one term President. Presidents Hoover (58%) and Harding (60%) were also elected with huge majorities and were one term Presidents. Historians rank Harding and Hoover largely as failures. Nixon was elected to a second term with 61% of the popular vote and was kicked out of office just 2 years later with abysmal approval ratings.

A huge popular vote margin does not always correlate to a successful Presidency. In fact its really no factor at all in determining a Presidents success.

Hoover was elected with 58% of the vote and was a failure. By contrast, Abraham Lincoln was elected with just 40% of the vote (Alabama, Mississippi and many southern states even refused to put him on the ballot) and he is the greatest President of all time.




2012-Obama 51%
2008-Obama 53%

2004-Bush 51%
2000-Bush 48%

1996-Clinton 49%
1992-Clinton 43%

1988-Bush 54% (One Term)

1984-Reagan 59%
1980-Reagan 51%

1976-Carter 49% (One Term)

1974-Ford (One Term)

1972-Nixon 61%
1968-Nixon 43%

1964-Johnson 61% (One Term)

1960-Kennedy 50% (49.7%/Died in office)

1956-Eisenhower 57%
1952-Eisenhower 55%

1948-Truman 50% (49.5%/One Term)


1944-Roosevelt 53%
1940-Roosevelt 55%
1936-Roosevelt 61%
1932-Roosevelt 57%

1928-Hoover 58% (One Term)

1924-Coolidge 54% (One Term)

1920-Harding 60% (One Term)

1916-Wilson 49%
1912-Wilson 42%

1908- Taft 52% (One Term)

1904-Roosevelt (Teddy) 56% (One Term)


The Presidents to win 2 terms with a majority of the popular vote are in bold. As everyone can see, what Obama accomplished Tuesday night is a very historic feat and rare accomplishment in Presidential history.


Reagan, Eisenhower, FDR, Obama......................... NOT BAD!

Teddy Roosevelt served out the rest of McKinley's term, then was elected in his own right in 1904.

I have made the correction!

It was a long post. And I think I got carried away counting my 4 year cycles. LOL!

The sequence Clinton - Bush II - Obama represents only the second time in American history three consecutive presidents have been elected to two terms each. The last three were Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.

Current political climate. When I made my list I was a little surprised at how many non-two term Presidents there really were.

Kennedy, Ford, LBJ, Carter, Truman, Nixon, and Bush were all post WW2 Presidents who failed this task.

We're on a new one. President Obama has that distinction all to himself.

100 year period. Also, we are in a new decade not a new century. The 21st Century began in 2001.

Going back to Teddy Roosevelt's presidency. . . more than a century ago however you figure it.

Obama is the only one in 100 years to win re-election with less of a percentage and EV's than his first run.