# The biggest obstacle facing the 2016 Democratic nominee: Fighting the historical trend **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 24, 2015, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686 "2015-08-24T03:24:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/21 "2015-08-25T15:05:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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. This is somewhat true, due to several different effects that operate on the system. The two-term limit for a President since Truman means that every eight years the vote for continuity is a vote for a party rather than a person. That’s a subtle and complicated difference. Bush I in 1988 was seen as third-term Reagan rather than as the new Republican candidate. He wasn’t, obviously, and that contributed to his loss in 1992. If you consider 1980-1992 to be one bumped 8-year cycle, the longer cycle falls into place. Presidents normally get a “honeymoon” period. People want them to succeed. And this also tends to insulate them from the bad effects of the previous president. Obama notably did not benefit from this in 2009. We have to see if this is a historic anomaly or whether the hyperpartisanship of the era has changed the dynamic. The three big drivers of opinion - the economy, domestic social polices, and international affairs - seldom operate on four-year cycles. With an election campaign now starting a mere two years after inauguration, there isn’t enough time to see the results of whatever a President does. With low information at re-election time, people would rather stick with the familiar. As with Truman and Bush 1, problems sometimes do not become apparent until deep into a “third” term. The cycles of history override the cycles of the presidency. People do indeed have a tendency to stay with the same party but that’s a subsidiary function of their wanting to stay with the same _person_. Taking that possibility out of the choice allows the counterpressures of wanting change to solve problems more success. The artificial two-term limitation makes change every two terms a greater possibility. Ideally, one could do a regression analysis to see which of all the effects has the greatest weight in any election year. In 2008 and 2012 the answer was obvious. In 2016 the factors are more evenly weighted, I believe. I continue to weight demographics most heavily. ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/22 "2015-08-25T15:22:42Z")
Keep seeing this “old white men” in the political threads. Are you quite certain there aren’t just as many or more middle-age (white and other) men and women? Sure, probably not many young, because idealism is a youthful dream, and the promise of a liberal utopia (that seems to make sense “on paper”) fits in with that. But most of us grow up and realize that the American taxpayer can’t afford to be the world’s welfare office. Voter turnout Trumps demographics. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/23 "2015-08-25T15:28:37Z")
I don’t think that people get more conservative as they grow older, so much as what conservativism actually means changes. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/24 "2015-08-25T15:30:43Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > 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.” Perhaps I might. But there is a difference between unintentional errors in officiating and willful treason and electoral fraud. > [@Velocity](#): > > No, I’m pretty sure stagflation would have sunk Carter anyway. So Reagan’s treasonous sabotage of the hostage negotiations was for nothing? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/25 "2015-08-25T15:42:56Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > Keep seeing this “old white men” in the political threads. Are you quite certain there aren’t just as many or more middle-age (white and other) men and women? Sure, probably not many young, because idealism is a youthful dream, and the promise of a liberal utopia (that seems to make sense “on paper”) fits in with that. But most of us grow up and realize that the American taxpayer can’t afford to be the world’s welfare office. I thought it made sense that getting older made you wiser in general, but then I saw Bush and Cheney and the support they got. As a fun parody line in the Onion told us back then when Cheney got into the white house: Bush: “our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over.” Unfortunately, it did not remain just a funny line. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/26 "2015-08-25T15:49:55Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > Keep seeing this “old white men” in the political threads. Are you quite certain there aren’t just as many or more middle-age (white and other) men and women? Sure, probably not many young, because idealism is a youthful dream, and the promise of a liberal utopia (that seems to make sense “on paper”) fits in with that. But most of us grow up and realize that the American taxpayer can’t afford to be the world’s welfare office. > > Voter turnout Trumps demographics. > [@Chronos](#): > > I don’t think that people get more conservative as they grow older, so much as what conservativism actually means changes. Right. Those who think that aging leads to conservatism are basing the argument off of a selected group of historical accidents. The liberal baby boomers are not getting more conservative; they’re a large audience for Bernie Sanders. Younger voters tend to reject today’s conservatism because it supports too many things they feel are inherently wrong. That will not change. Acceptance of intolerance toward gays, women, Muslims, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and all the other straight Christian non-white men will never return in its present form and those who support it will always be reviled. (Even young evangelical Christians are moving away from their elder’s intolerance. Prediction: atheists are the next category to be accepted.) Older people do tend to vote in greater percentages and in a greater number of elections than younger ones. That’s why mid-term elections are no predictor of presidential elections. Much of the conservative political discourse has depended on this fact. But the oldest voters are both the most conservative and dying off the fastest. There is simply no evidence that the middle-aged people of today will become that conservative. And the youngest and most liberal demographic will be aging into middle-age and likely voting more. Conservatism as we know it today is hanging by a thread over the next few decades. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/27 "2015-08-25T16:02:02Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > There is simply no evidence that the middle-aged people of today will become that conservative. And the youngest and most liberal demographic will be aging into middle-age and likely voting more. Conservatism as we know it today is hanging by a thread over the next few decades. I agree. A conservative is someone who thinks things were perfect when they were a kid. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/28 "2015-08-25T16:12:38Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You know, this is still the best answer yet. > > 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. How do you have more instances than his 11 or 12 starting with an even earlier year? That’s the main thing that seems to lead you to a different conclusion. You have a lot more switches than he does. ---
**Author:** ![Balance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@Balance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balance)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/29 "2015-08-25T16:33:40Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > 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. So, to tabulate: 1904 - No switch 1912 - Switch 1920 - Switch 1928 - No switch 1932 - Off-schedule, resets the cycle 1940 - No switch 1948 - No switch 1952 - Off-schedule, reset 1960 - Switch 1968 - Switch 1976 - Switch 1980 - Off-schedule, reset (this one switched early, by your projection) 1988 - No switch 1992 - Off-schedule, reset 2000 - Switch 2008 - Switch Dropping the off-schedule switches, as they don’t fall in the cycle projected by the perceived trend: No switch - 5 Switch - 7 In your selected sample of 12 expected switch years, a switch occurred ~58.3% of the time. You argue that when a switch does not occur on schedule, it’s due to special circumstances–how special do they have to be when they obtain nearly half the time? I agree with you quite often, on many things. In this case, however, it seems to me that you’re applying hindsight to explain “exceptions” to a trend that can’t reliably be established in such a small sample. Is there a trend? Maybe. I’m not saying there isn’t. I’m just saying that we can’t tell enough about it to give it any real predictive value. ---
**Author:** ![DerekMichaels00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@DerekMichaels00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DerekMichaels00)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/30 "2015-08-25T17:35:06Z")
I think this is 1988 in reverse; in 1987 just like 2015, the incumbent party president had [middling](http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx) approvals but since the party out of power still had fielded front-runners with out-of-mainstream views, Dukakis on death penalty and welfare, most of the GOP field on immigration and gay marriage, on top of the fact that by the time the incumbent is on his way out, the economy will have been better than when he took office, the incumbent party will stay in power. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/31 "2015-08-25T18:58:25Z")
If a two term President has a 60+% approval rating, he can usually see his successor elected. If he’s not that popular, probably not. But sure, the sample size is small, so there might not be a historical trend. But I don’t agree that the historical trend doesn’t matterr becuase there’s a “new normal” of greater polarization. It’s more a case of it exists or it’s just been coincidence. My vote is for “it exists” and polls are showing Republicans doing pretty well. Plus there are other issues to consider, like the fact that faith in the executive branch is at Watergate levels. Obama has a lot of personal popularity, but unlike Ronald Reagan who was also personally popular, he hasn’t made Americans have more confidence in their country or their government. Which means that a Democrat without his personal charisma is going to have a hard time overcoming those headwinds. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/32 "2015-08-25T19:08:47Z")
> [@Balance](#): > > I agree with you quite often, on many things. In this case, however, it seems to me that you’re applying hindsight to explain “exceptions” to a trend that can’t reliably be established in such a small sample. Is there a trend? Maybe. I’m not saying there isn’t. I’m just saying that we can’t tell enough about it to give it any real predictive value. I look at this as being explanative. (Yes, spell checker: that’s a real word.) If you want to say that every presidential election is a special circumstance, you could make a good case. Yet, most elections are not that hard to predict. A few are hard because they are close; very few are hard because they totally defy expectations. (After Dewey losing to Truman, how many can you name?) As Chronos indicated, the historic results do not match a random allotment of wins. Any theory that had Obama losing in 2008 and 2012 is a bad theory. There are good reasons when a party retains power and good reasons when it loses it. These are almost always obvious well ahead of the election. I think Silver does important work and I agree completely with his assessment of most talking head pundits as worthless gasbags. Horse race journalism, which unfortunately dominates this forum as well, is a pain. And those who “unskew” polls are beneath contempt. For me, explanative examinations are better, because they deal with more than the one-day results; they tell you about an era. “Why” is a critical question. Polls don’t deal well with it. Nor is there a golden formula in which to plug numbers and spit out an election return. Political science and history are the tools for “why” questions. They happen to be my fields, so I look at things through those lens. I think the results are pretty good overall. I’m not going to defend myself past that. ---
**Author:** ![Balance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@Balance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balance)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/33 "2015-08-25T19:42:44Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > If you want to say that every presidential election is a special circumstance, you could make a good case. Yet, most elections are not that hard to predict. A few are hard because they are close; very few are hard because they totally defy expectations. (After Dewey losing to Truman, how many can you name?) The relative ease of predicting elections is one of the things I generally agree with you on. However, those predictions are made knowing many of the circumstances of the upcoming election. If the pendulum were the dominant factor, you could use it to predict several cycles in advance. The set of elections we’ve examined suggests that’s not the case. > [@](#): > > As Chronos indicated, the historic results do not match a random allotment of wins. Any theory that had Obama losing in 2008 and 2012 is a bad theory. There are good reasons when a party retains power and good reasons when it loses it. These are almost always obvious well ahead of the election. > > I think Silver does important work and I agree completely with his assessment of most talking head pundits as worthless gasbags. Horse race journalism, which unfortunately dominates this forum as well, is a pain. And those who “unskew” polls are beneath contempt. > > For me, explanative examinations are better, because they deal with more than the one-day results; they tell you about an era. “Why” is a critical question. Polls don’t deal well with it. Nor is there a golden formula in which to plug numbers and spit out an election return. Political science and history are the tools for “why” questions. They happen to be my fields, so I look at things through those lens. I think the results are pretty good overall. I’m not going to defend myself past that. My take on the pattern–and again, I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just that it’s less clear than people make it out to be–is that it is more symptom than cause. Two terms represents a long enough span for a party to get the message that something went wrong, and to adjust positions, strategy, and branding to try to address it. It’s also time for a great many new voters to enter the rolls, who may not share the impressions and habits of those who were already voting. Yes, a “throw the bums out” impulse is probably part of it, but I think there’s more to it than that. In my view, the strength of the pattern relies on the parties responding to repeated electoral loss by making successful efforts to increase their appeal with both new voters and existing mainstream voters. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/34 "2015-08-25T19:56:44Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The health care law is not popular. > [@wolfpup](#): > > It’s not? > [Obamacare’s Rising Popularity Could Sink Republicans in 2016](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121614/obamacare-popular-kaiser-poll) > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Meanwhile, back in reality: > > [INDENT][The survey finds opinion on the health-care law among the worst in Post-ABC polling; 54 percent oppose, up six percentage points from a year ago. Support ties the record low of 39 percent](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/08/public-to-supreme-court-dont-gut-obamacare/) What an odd article to support your position. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/35 "2015-08-25T21:53:30Z")
> [@Balance](#): > > My take on the pattern–and again, I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just that it’s less clear than people make it out to be–is that it is more symptom than cause. Two terms represents a long enough span for a party to get the message that something went wrong, and to adjust positions, strategy, and branding to try to address it. It’s also time for a great many new voters to enter the rolls, who may not share the impressions and habits of those who were already voting. Yes, a “throw the bums out” impulse is probably part of it, but I think there’s more to it than that. This seems like a good paragraph to reiterate the title of Silver’s book _ **The Signal and the Noise** _. I’m with you. It is easier for an incumbent to win than a challenger, of course. I think that explains most if not all of the eight year ‘pendulum’ pattern people think they see. The past 3 times that both candidates have been challengers, the White House flipped parties, but there’s just not much data. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686/36 "2015-08-25T23:17:12Z")
I’m not saying that there’s not something to this. I am saying that, “The biggest obstacle facing the 2016 Democratic nominee: Fighting the historical trend,” or statements similar to the title of this thread are vastly overstating the strength of this trend. I lean towards every election being a special case. Therefore I don’t think a assigning a “why” to, for example Kennedy beating Nixon in 1960, provides a ton of insight into 2016. That was a very close election and an equally strong case could be made for any number of “whys”. Chalking it up to a historical trend seems a little lazy and ignores a bunch of political science and history. Much of the same could be said about 2000. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-biggest-obstacle-facing-the-2016-democratic-nominee-fighting-the-historical-trend/728686.md?page=1)