History shows Hillary unlikely to win (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 02, 2024, 09:30:40 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  History shows Hillary unlikely to win (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: History shows Hillary unlikely to win  (Read 1625 times)
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

« on: November 19, 2014, 05:15:31 PM »

The White House is a metronome in one very important way.

Since the 1928 election, the following trend has been consistent.

Parties peak, and slowly lose power until the other party takes over, and peaks and slowly loses power.

Even when one party won many elections in a row, it followed this pattern.

So Truman in 1948 won less votes then FDR in 1944, who won less votes than he did in 1940, who won less votes in 1936. Papa Bush got less votes in 1988 than Reagan did in 1984.

There can always be an exception, but it seems to be a mistake to assume that an exception is the likeliest outcome.

How can you possibly think this is logical?  Seriously!?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2014, 06:13:54 PM »

The White House is a metronome in one very important way.

Since the 1928 election, the following trend has been consistent.

Parties peak, and slowly lose power until the other party takes over, and peaks and slowly loses power.

Even when one party won many elections in a row, it followed this pattern.

So Truman in 1948 won less votes then FDR in 1944, who won less votes than he did in 1940, who won less votes in 1936. Papa Bush got less votes in 1988 than Reagan did in 1984.

There can always be an exception, but it seems to be a mistake to assume that an exception is the likeliest outcome.

How can you possibly think this is logical?  Seriously!?
The major question is whether it's all a coincidence like the Redskin rule, or whether there are reasons things happen this way.

It seems logical enough to me as a combination of several tendencies (Losing parties get more concerned about picking nominees that appeal to the center, swing voters get tired of the party in charge, Presidents concerned about reelection pick policies with short-term benefits.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

No offense, but you're not a logically thinking person as far as I can tell.  But, just think of it this way, the null hypothesis is that every Presidential election is a toss-up.  Each major party has about a 50% chance to win, all things being equal.  You have other factors like incumbency, extrinsic events, fundraising, campaign organizing, candidate quality and such which influence each particular election.  To me, that is the far, far, far more logical way to look at Presidential elections, especially when we have a tiny n size which makes your analysis basically akin to looking at goat entrails in terms of methodology.

Thus, Roosevelt only winning a minor landslide in 1940 is a regression towards the mean.  It was more about the facts on the ground particular to 1936, than it was about 1940.  Similarly, you have popular, charismatic people like Reagan or Bill Clinton.  The fact that they won by significant margins may say more about their talents and the political situation in their election years.  In 2016, the Democrat will not have the advantage of incumbency.  That's the only valid point you have.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 13 queries.