Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: 2012 presidential election could result in a narrow victory

By Eliot Elwar     Oct 27, 2012 in Politics
Americans remain sharply divided along political, social, and ideological lines; therefore, there could be a narrow victory in November. America's economic destiny will be determined by the voters.
If Obama wins, we will see the continuation of an activist liberal presidency. However, if Romney wins we may see a president with real financial martial arts decorated with the moral courage to find real world solutions to the Mideast revolutions.
From GMU Election Data: The 2004 presidential election demonstrated the highest voter turnout in nearly 40 years; almost 124 million people voted. However, only 60 percent of all eligible voters cast their ballots. Today the 2012 elections could again bring a record setting number of voters to the polls. As the ideological lines in the sand grow deeper, more Americans will care about the 2012 election than ever before.
From GMU Election Data: The 2000 presidential election showed that every ballot was important. George W. Bush won by 4 electoral votes, while Al Gore won the popular vote by 337,576 votes. The deciding factor in Bush's winning the election was the victory in Florida by just 537 votes. Likewise, there have been many tight presidential contests during the past two centuries where a few votes would have changed the outcome of the election.
From History Central: Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey by just over 500,000 popular votes in 1968. However, that was nothing when compared with Kennedy's victory over Nixon by just over 100,000 popular votes in 1960. Benjamin Harrison won the presidency with 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland's 168, while Cleveland received 90,596 more popular votes than Harrison in 1888. However, Cleveland did not give up because he came back in 1892 to beat Harrison by a popular vote of 3.1 percent and with 277 electoral votes, 132 more than Harrison. A few years earlier, James Garfield handily won the Electoral College vote in his race against Winfield Scott Hancock by 1898 popular votes in 1880.
From History Central: Samuel J. Tilden lost to Rutherford B. Hayes by 1 electoral vote, although he won 254,235 more popular votes than Hayes in 1876. To settle the dispute, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission with five representatives each from the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court to decide between the two candidates. A single Republican who favored Tilden was forced by his party to vote for Hayes rather than Tilden and Hayes became the president. To calm the angry Democrats, the Republicans offered concessions which became the Compromise of 1877.
From History Central: Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams in the vote at the House of Representatives, where Adams, who had received the second largest number of both electoral and popular votes, was considered a more worthy candidate than Jackson who had won first in both categories in 1824. Jackson was convinced that he had been denied the presidency and campaigned hard the next four years to beat Adams in 1828.
From History Central: Thomas Jefferson beat Aaron Burr after 36 stalemated ballots in the House of Representatives in 1801. Thomas Jefferson had won in the Electoral College against incumbent John Adams but had tied with Aaron Burr in 1800. Over five days the House wrestled to decide between Jefferson and Burr as ballot after ballot ended in a tie. Finally, through the persuasive efforts of Alexander Hamilton, who hated Burr, Vermont and Maryland switched their votes to Jefferson and he became the 3rd U.S. President.
From the Los Angeles Times: “A majority of people in a new poll say they’ll vote according to their pocketbook in November — but that doesn’t necessarily give either presidential candidate an edge. Fifty-nine percent of Americans say their personal financial situation is a critical factor determining who they’ll back for president.”
After four years of Obama’s presidency, the economy is still struggling, the jobless rate is still painfully high, Mideast revolutions continue, and Tehran maintains its nuclear weapons program, while Ahmadinejad makes apocalyptic threats to the U.S. and Israel. Obama’s effort to restore America’s weak economy was misguided because he focused too much effort on domestic social issues (gay marriage, abortion, and health care) rather than U.S. economic growth and Mideast foreign policy solutions. Americans usually vote according to their pocketbooks; therefore, by electing Romney Americans could change the financial direction of the nation.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of
More about Obama, Romney, America, Election, 2012 presidential election
More news from
Latest News
Top News