Which revisionist theory is worse? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2024, 06:41:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Which revisionist theory is worse? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Well?
#1
Bill Clinton was the only Democrat who could have won in 1992/Bill Clinton realigned the map
 
#2
Donald Trump was the only Republican who could have won in 2016
 
#3
They're both equally bad
 
#4
Other
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 70

Author Topic: Which revisionist theory is worse?  (Read 3535 times)
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


« on: January 19, 2017, 07:58:10 PM »

Write-in: Hillary was the only Democrat who could have won in 2016.

-This.

Of course, Trump was not the only electable Republican in 2016, just like Clinton was not the only electable Democrat in 1992. Both claims, however, are arguable given lack of counterfactuals. In any case, WJC did change the map. He was the first Democrat since LBJ to win California, New Jersey, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Colorado. He was also the first Democrat in history to win a presidential election while losing Texas and North Carolina.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2017, 07:59:45 PM »

Write-in: Ronald Reagan was not a race-baiting, anti-intellectual who ran a corrupt administration

-Uh... I'm not the biggest fan of Reagan out there, but this is a bad misrepresentation of his presidency.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2017, 02:02:35 AM »
« Edited: January 21, 2017, 02:26:16 AM by Eharding »

Option 2, because the one about Clinton realigning the map is true.

It really isn't (see: 1988, 2000, 2008, 2016).

Um it is 1992 brought the west coast to democratic fold and brought states like Illinois Vermont new hamshire ,Maine, Michigan , New Jersey to democratic fold

That wasn't because of Clinton. Any other Democrat likely would have won those states as well, the trends were already evident in 1988.

-"Blue Wall" states NJ, PA, MD, and DE, as well as probable WJC-only states TN, KY, and GA all trended Republican in 1988. However, of these, only NJ was a Ford--->Clinton state.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2017, 02:07:04 AM »

Option 2, because the one about Clinton realigning the map is true.

It really isn't (see: 1988, 2000, 2008, 2016).

Um it is 1992 brought the west coast to democratic fold and brought states like Illinois Vermont new hamshire ,Maine, Michigan , New Jersey to democratic fold

That wasn't because of Clinton. Any other Democrat likely would have won those states as well, the trends were already evident in 1988.

-Also, the pro-Dukakis trend in New England may have just been a product of Dukakis being from New England, just like the pro-WJC trend in the South was probably largely a product of WJC being from the South.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2017, 03:51:23 PM »

How about the very pervasive theory that any Republican would've won bigger than Trump did?

-You really think Lyin' Ted and Liddle Marco had a chance?
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 0.029 seconds with 12 queries.