In response to:

Obama's Numbers Went Down, but Romney Never Inspired Voters to Vote

Slinkiecat Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 8:43 PM
That's not history. Bush inherited a mild recession rather than a growing economy. The "Dot.com" crash ended the Clinton uptake, and that's why Bush got his first tax cut passed to invigorate the economy. Then there was the long process of getting his Cabinet seated because of Democrats stonewalling, and a few weeks after that was settled, the horrific attacks of 9/11 sent the economy into a real tailspin. Bush put through another big tax cut package, and from then the economy took off and flourished again, with unemployment virtually nil at 4.5%. Two wars that were unpopular even though Congress approved both were dragging down the presidential approval, and the housing financial market caused the terrible decline in Bush's last year.
In combing through the results of the 2012 election -- apparently finally complete, nearly two months after the fact -- I continue to find many similarities between 2012 and 2004, and one enormous difference.

Both of the elections involved incumbent presidents with approval ratings hovering around or just under 50 percent facing challengers who were rich men from Massachusetts (though one made his money and the other married it).

In both cases, the challenger and his campaign seemed confident he was going to win -- and had reasonable grounds to believe so.

In both elections, the incumbent started running a barrage...