It’s no secret that it’s very difficult historically for the same party to hold onto the White House for more than two consecutive terms. The last time it happened was when Bush 41 succeeded Saint Ronnie, & even he only made it one term before being toppled by Clinton in '92.
Obviously, I’m hopeful that whoever the Dem nominee is will be able to carry the day in 2016, but the bottom line is that it’s very difficult for such three-four term partisan through-lines to actually happen. I’m curious to see the SDMB’s thoughts on this issue.
FWIW, I asked a liberal coworker about this a few weeks ago, and his response was basically this: In normal times, this would be an actual issue; however, given the polarization of the Obama era - and the radicalization of the GOP during that time - times are no longer normal, so this historical trend just isn’t applicable to the upcoming election.
The point is that I also think that while historical precedent helps, in this case there are a lot of issues that not even the majority of Republicans actually agree with what the current congress is doing. IMHO the “keep them divided” sentiment is going to be preferred this time and let the congress remain Republican and the Presidency stay Democratic.
I also think that the matching polls so far have been very consistent with the idea that the Democrats will keep the white house with the most likely candidate.
The fact that the FOX polls are consistently against the grain and that they reduce the very significant democratic advantage tells me that we can dismiss them, and that one can be wary but I like the chances of the Democrats this time around.
I agree that the historical trend is a problem, all else being equal. I’ve been saying that since 2012. But the non-equality isn’t because “times are no longer normal”. It’s easy to get wrapped up in the moment and think that the present day is somehow exceptional and forget the past.
Here’s what I’d ask your friend. If these are not normal times, what of the 60s when the Vietnam war was raging? How about 1968, when Johnson opted not to seek re-election, and Democrats nominated Humphrey and Muskie in a Chicago convention that became infamous for the massive riot that occurred there, in a year in which both Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy had been assassinated and riots raged in over 100 cities across America? Were those “normal times”? Hell, those were the times when many wondered whether America as we know it would even survive. And incidentally, guess who the Humphrey team was running against? Why, Tricky Dick and his equally felonious pal Spiro Agnew – and a few years later Dick would get himself involved in covering up a little incident at the Watergate hotel, and eventually leave office in ignominy. “Normal times”, indeed.
What I think is different today and will likely buck the historical trend is that Republicans not only find themselves leaderless and directionless, they also have a huge loose cannon bouncing around in the form of The Donald, pretty much wrecking whatever may be left of the party’s reputation. And among the serious candidates, no one stands out – it’s sort of an amorphous clown car. Jeb might have had a shot except for the small problem of his dear brother being arguably the worst president in American history. The Dems, conversely, seem to have established leadership in Hillary Clinton, the possibility of Joe Biden stepping in if she tanks, and both of them having some strong candidates to draw upon for running mates. My two cents, anyway, and I obviously have a bias here. I’m sure many will disagree.
I don’t know. Historically, the same party can win three presidential terms in a row. However, it typically happens when that party is popular and successful and pushing a strong and clear agenda that most of the country supports. FDR won four elections in a row and Truman added a fifth Democratic victory. Reagan and George H. W. Bush won three in a row. By popular vote, the voters preferred Al Gore for a third Democratic term in 2000.
With Hillary in 2016, what does she have? The Democrat in the White House is not terribly popular. The Democratic Party is not terribly popular. The Democratic agenda is not popular. The health care law is not popular. Opposition to Keystone KL is not popular. Obama’s foreign policy is a disaster, and given that Hillary was Secretary of State for four years, she’s partially responsible. The economy could be worse, but it could also be better. Promises have not been kept: health care costs are rising, student debt is rising, income inequality is rising.
Hillary basically offers more of the same. She can’t run against the ACA. She can’t run against Obama’s foreign policy. She can’t run against his economic policy, his big spending, or his tax increases. “Hey voters, four more years of the stuff you’ve disliked for the past eight years!” It’s tough to see how that’s a winning campaign slogan.
On the other hand, the Republican Party’s capacity for suicidal idiocy should never be underestimated.
They don’t have to be terribly popular. They just have to be relatively popular.
Clinton may be unpopular, but is she as unpopular as Bush? And that’s probably the best match-up the Republicans can get.
Conservatives have to learn to look outside of their social circle when they count votes. You don’t win the Presidency by winning middle-aged white men. Sure all the people who voted for Romney in 2012 might vote for the Republican candidate in 2016. But Romney lost.
So which groups that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 do the Republicans expect to do better with in 2016? Do Republicans think they’re going to pick up more women voters when they’re running against Hillary Clinton? Are they expecting black voters to swing over to the Republicans? Trump’s killed off any chance that the Republicans will make significant gains among Hispanics.
And, frankly, I suspect that the vast majority that do oppose it, oppose it for the fictitious reasons manufactured for them by Fox News. Because there’s no rational reason to oppose a system that prohibits denial of health care for pre-existing conditions, imposes responsible medical payout ratios on the insurers, and prohibits bullshit policies that don’t actually meaningfully cover anything. The only rational reason to oppose those things is that they don’t go far enough, and that’s why at least a public option was needed as well.
Back in January the majority of Americans either opposed KXL or said they didn’t know enough about it. With the huge glut of oil that exists today, I doubt that anybody really much cares about it any more. Of course there’s the longer term, but in the longer term the compelling priority is climate change anyway. These are supportable, factual arguments that the Democrats can and should be making.
Obama didn’t invade and destroy enough countries while landing on aircraft carriers in designer flight suits, is that the problem?
The voters need to think carefully about which party’s policies are absolutely and precisely responsible for each one of those things. Like, vote in a Congress that cuts taxes for the rich and then blame Obama for rising income inequality! :rolleyes:
Yeah, that will be the salvation, one can only hope.
First of all, Bush wouldn’t have been on the ballot in 2004 if he hadn’t stolen the 2000 election. In 2004, Ohio. The Ohio Secretary of State did everything in and beyond his power to throw the state to Chimpy. Tossing out registrations for not being on the correct weight of paper, inequitably distributing voting machines so that urban areas had intolerable wait times, and yes there were irregularities in counting as well.
Poppy Bush wouldn’t have been able to run as a quasi-incumbent had Reagan not treasoned his way into the White House.
You may now return to the fantasy land in which Obamacare’s popularity is rising and a majority of Americans don’t support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
No, that is not the problem. The problems is that Obama’s foreign policy is unpopular. Here’s the poll results: 56% disapprove of his handling of foreign affairs, only 43% approve.
Imagine if a sports fan said, "The Steelers haven’t won a legitimate Super Bowl since 1974. They beat the Cowboys in 1975 only because the refs didn’t call penalties on Pittsburgh when they should have. They beat the Cowboys in 1978 only because of a dubious pass-interference call against a Dallas cornerback, Benny Barnes. They beat the Rams in 1979 only because of a dubious pass interference call against a Rams cornerback, Pat Thomas. They beat the Seahawks in 2005 only because of horrible officiating. They beat the Cardinals in 2008 only because of horrible officiating; the refs incorrectly ruled Kurt Warner’s incomplete pass as a fumble. Without the refs helping them all the time, the Steelers would NEVER have won their last four championships."
You’d probably say, “Your bias and prejudice is clouding your analysis.”
That one’s a bit old. Kaiser’s latest survey places it in positive territory (44 to 41). Many polls have shown outright majority opposition to repealing the law.
Nate Silver is just wrong on this one, IMO. There is a huge tendency for the office to go back and forth every eight years. Tendency is not an absolute, but the exceptions are few in number and occur mainly for oddball special reasons that cannot be replicated.
Start with the 20th century, when the parties as we know them finally coalesced. 1904 would normally have been a switch year, but McKinley was shot and the phenomenally popular Teddy Roosevelt was elevated from a position meant to get him out of sight. 1912 switched. 1920 switched. 1928 is a real exception: the economy was booming and the party in power stayed, but became a casualty of the recession they caused. 1932 therefore switched. The world was at war in 1940. 1948 should have switched and was extremely close, but the party in power stayed on until things went south. 1952 therefore switched. 1960 was a switch year. 1968 was a switch year. 1976 was a switch year. 1980 was a reaction year, with an unexpected switch. 1988 was like 1928, “the party in power stayed, but became a casualty of the recession they caused.” 1992 therefore switched. 2000 switched. 2008 switched.
2016 looks like a very good candidate for a switch. But the economy, while certainly not booming, has been going up continually since 2009. And the party out of power has gone out of its way to alienate every growing demographic. Many switch years rely upon people voting against even more than they are voting for (although it helps tremendously to have both, as with Eisenhower and Reagan). The switchable block has less reason to vote against than in many elections and the demographics are extremely favorable to the Democrats.
It’s certainly possible that 2016 will be like 1928 and 1988 and the party in power will stay on one term too long. But demographics are not merely currently favorable to the Democrats: they grow increasingly favorable as far as the eye can see. Unless the Republicans overhaul their party to win back blacks, Hispanics, women, immigrants, and the young they have no future appealing primarily to older white males, even though that has long been a winning strategy.
You can’t project very far into the future, though. Parties do change, and so do demographics. The tendency to blame the current party for all the faults of the world is historically an overwhelming trend - everywhere, not just in America. I’d be surprised if it didn’t starting appearing again in the future after a new Roosevelt-like culture change dissipates its effect.
If every election were completely random, with no correlation at all, positive or negative, between them, then it would appear that the Presidency had a tendency to change every four years. The dominant frequency in random noise is the Nyquist frequency, the highest frequency a discrete system can have. The fact that we instead observe a tendency to change every eight years, then, instead of four, means that the American people actually have a tendency to stay with the same party. Which is to the benefit of the Democrats this cycle.