REMARKABLE – AT 11:18 A.M. ET:  Should the unthinkable happen, and President Obama is re-elected, he may well become the first president in modern American history (and possibly all American history) to win re-election with less support than he had the first time around.  That would be a huge blow to his prestige and earn him an unwanted asterisk in the history books.

Consider:

Eisenhower won in 1952 with 442 electoral votes and 55.2% of the vote; he won four years later with 457 electoral votes and 57.4% of the vote.

Nixon won in 1968 with 301 electoral votes and 43.4% of the vote.  (It was a three-way race, with Hubert Humphrey and Democratic candidate and George Wallace running on the American Independent ticket.)  Nixon won four years later with 520 electoral votes and 60.7% of the vote.

Reagan won in 1980 with 489 electoral votes and 50.7% of the vote.  (Third-party candidate was John Anderson.)  In 1984 he received 525 electoral votes and 58.8% of the vote.

Clinton won in 1992 with 370 electoral votes and 43% of the vote, with Ross Perot running as a third-party candidate.  Clinton won again in 1994 with 379 electoral votes and 49.2% of the vote.

George W. Bush won in 2000 with 271 electoral votes and 47.9% of the vote.  (His opponent, Al Gore, got 266 electoral votes and 48.4% of the popular vote.)

But Bush won in 2004 with 286 electoral votes and 50.7% of the popular vote.

COMMENT:  So, if Obama comes in with less support than he had in 2008, he will not only be a lame duck, he will be a limping duck.  Unpopular, with no real enthusiasm behind him.  His party will not control the House, and will probably control the Senate by a margin too small to pass major legislation. 

However, in foreign policy Obama could do real damage, as he could in running the executive branch, where regulations are written.  So even a limping duck could leave the country weaker, and Obama will certainly try.

October 27, 2012