A Quote by James Baker

I understand personally that it is frustrating to lose presidential elections by narrow margins. — © James Baker
I understand personally that it is frustrating to lose presidential elections by narrow margins.
I understand personally, ... that it is frustrating to lose presidential elections by narrow margins.
We can have national dialogue where different Syrian parties sit and discuss the future of Syria. You can have interim government or transitional government. Then you have final elections, parliamentary elections, and you're going to have presidential elections.
The Democrats do fine in presidential elections; their problem is they can't get out the vote in the midterm elections.
[American Communist Party] legally exists in the U.S.A., it nominates its candidates in the elections, including Presidential elections.
Consider this: The United States held its first presidential election in 1789. It marked the first peaceful transfer of executive power between parties in the fourth presidential election in 1801, and it took another 200 years' worth of presidential elections before the courts had to settle an election.
Here's the deal: when conservatives lose elections, they change their strategy. When liberals lose elections, they want to change the rules.
Even the Republicans themselves have acknowledged they have a diversity problem. If you look at their autopsy report following the 2012 election, they have specifically said they would continue to lose presidential elections unless they address the problem that they have with their alienation of minority groups.
The average GOP presidential vote in these last five elections was 44.5 percent. In the last three, it was 48.1 percent. Give Romney an extra point for voter disillusionment with Obama, and a half-point for being better financed than his predecessors. It still strikes me as a path to narrow defeat.
Every time I have fought elections, I have improved my victory margins.
Well, one thing that has happened is they have had a presidential election in Egypt which has represented progress. Now, we were not happy with everything that happened with the parliamentary elections, and it was not exactly a perfect presidential election in Egypt.
One of the most frustrating things is to see a country in which you had elections, the elections were a success, but then you have to say to people nothing can be improved in the next few months, even in the next few years, in infrastructure, in water, in sanitation, in health, in education, in jobs.
Midterms behave very differently than presidential elections. Midterms, for a federal candidate, often times are a referendum on the president, where in presidential years, voters make two separate choices: one for president and one for a federal officeholder.
I think, first and foremost, showing up, making sure that Democrats focus not just on elections, not just on presidential elections, but we begin the process of rebuilding the infrastructure of the party at the grassroots. We begin going out to all those rural counties and begin having a conversation with rural voters and making sure that we hear their concerns, hear their complaints, and also educate them about what we are doing, making sure that we focus on state legislative races, not just congressional, Senate, governor, and presidential races.
I will not step down, I will not resign, ... I will work to the end of my term in office under the constitution. In the year 2000, there will be presidential elections under the constitution and I will not run in those elections.
In most presidential elections, the taller candidate wins.
Barack Obama was elected President in 2008 and re-elected in 2012. The natural thing would be to suggest money on the right [wing] doesn't really matter that much. The first thing you have to know is that the presidential elections are the ones where it's most difficult for money to hold sway, in that they're the most public elections.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!