Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 23, 2015, 10:10:23 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who WILL BE the GOP nominee for President? on: May 17, 2015, 11:09:46 pm
Scott Walker.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Basic Reason Hilary Will Probably Win on: May 09, 2015, 10:30:31 pm
I think Hillary can win. More-so because the GOP doesn't have that one exciting candidate.

Rand Paul could be , but I don't think he's a good enough politician to win the primaries or the general.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 candidates- 1945-1992 era Politician Equalvant on: May 01, 2015, 10:01:49 pm
Hillary Rodham Clinton: George H.W. Bush 1988
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: In what sense is Jeb Bush electable? on: April 29, 2015, 04:52:42 pm
I don't think Scott Walker can win either. He's too dull. He reminds me of Michael Dukakis.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Current ticket predictions? on: April 26, 2015, 08:19:55 pm
Clinton/Kaine

Walker/Rubio
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who should Hillary Clinton pick as her VP? on: April 16, 2015, 07:51:39 pm
Martin Heinrich
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / 1920-1988 on: April 16, 2015, 03:22:55 pm
Your theory on why almost every presidential election was an electoral college landslide during that time?
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does Hillary Win? on: April 12, 2015, 05:00:22 pm
She has a pretty good chance.

I don't think Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are good enough politicians.

Scott Walker makes Al Gore look like George Clooney.

Jeb Bush is the most electable, but a tad too dull overall.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Do You Think Bush Is Strongest? on: April 02, 2015, 06:19:54 am
He may not be stronger than Kasich or Paul, but he is DEFINITELY stronger than Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Snyder, ...

Reasons:
1.) He's a great debater. Better than Clinton.
2.) He can appeal to Hispanics and maybe Asian Americans (but not because of muh Hispanic wife!)
3.) He has enough money.
4.) He can defeat Clinton.
5.) He would be an establishment candidate.
6.) He's smarter than Romney and wouldn't let Hillary define him as "pure dynasty evil".

He's the most electable, but not exciting to anyone. To win a presidential election, you have to make yourself really stand-out. Jeb is way too "more of the same".
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who is the strongest GOP candidate against Hillary? on: April 01, 2015, 09:23:45 am
Jeb Bush is the most electable, but he is not exciting at all.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Worst-run presidential campaign on: March 31, 2015, 06:59:50 am
1976 Carter: ironically despite this being a winning candidacy Carter was up like 30 points on Ford the summer before the election. Ford closed the gap to 2 points on election day. Many pundits have concluded a few more days campaigning and moderate Ford would likely have won this one.

I was in a poli sci course that semester and the course was almost entirely about that election. The data we saw suggested that Ford peaked the weekend before the election, so had it been held on Sunday instead of Tuesday he might have been retained in office. We also astonished the professor by predicting that the election would be one of the closest of the century, which it was.



I'm inclined to think the race was going to tighten no matter what because there too many things in the incumbent's favor, so I'm hesitant to say Carter '76 was the worst winning campaign.

Wildcard choice for worst winning campaign: Clinton '96. He had peace, prosperity, Democrats had only held the WH for one term, had a washed-up, inept campaigner for an opponent, had a GOP Congress to rail against...and yet still won only by single digits and couldn't crack 50% of the vote. I know there were questions about his character, but were they any worse than questions about Nixon's character when he won in '72? I guess also we could see the beginnings of regional polarization in this election..

There was also the Ross Perot factor possibly keeping Clinton 50%.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / 1932 election on: March 30, 2015, 02:14:22 pm
How did Hoover win Pennsylvania?
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Name the next three U.S. Presidents on: March 22, 2015, 09:03:58 am
Hillary Rodham Clinton 2017-2021
John Kasich 2021-2025
Unknown democrat 2025-2033
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Quinnipiac national poll: Clinton leads Republicans by 3-10 points on: March 14, 2015, 04:25:09 am
So Hillary leads Jeb by double digits in OH/PA (and even by a point in Florida), but only by three nationally? That's obviously impossible. They really need to fix their schizophrenic state/national divide.

It kind of reminds me of the Obama/Romney polls in 2011/2012. Obama was up in most or all of the key states, but often tied nationally.
15  General Politics / Economics / Re: Strong Nov. Jobs Report: 321,000 added, unemployment rate unchanged on: December 06, 2014, 08:39:51 pm
2011-2013 was painfully slow, but this year has been quite good.
Actually, you can say the recovery began in late-2011, after the debt ceiling crisis, when job creation jumped up closer to 200K per month and unemployment rapidly fell. It was late 2009 - late 2011 that was grindingly slow. Now it seems that this year we're possibly achieving escape velocity, and momentum keeps building, but it's a frustratingly slow build.

I meant it was largely awful in 2009/2010. Then 2011-2013, the very slow turnaround. 2014- the solid rebound.
16  General Politics / Economics / Re: Strong Nov. Jobs Report: 321,000 added, unemployment rate unchanged on: December 05, 2014, 04:54:05 pm
2011-2013 was painfully slow, but this year has been quite good.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Warren vs. Obama Spin on: October 23, 2014, 06:55:10 pm
Warren is not going to run, especially since unlike Obama in 2008. She respects Hillary.

She might run if Hillary decides to quit politics by 2016, but she'll loose massively to a moderate republican if she manages to win the democratic candidacy.

Alsowasn't Obama supposed to be the far-left's Elizabeth Warren back in 2008?


If Warren even somehow manages to get elected, just like Obama. In many years down the road they'll just be complaining about how "Warren is a secret conservative/center-right" Like the far-left/radical base of thedemocratic party are calling Obama today.

President's always change their policies when they have to experience more of the political issues from the broader range and not the ideological bubble they had when they got elected.

Thats why Obama went from cap and trade, closing gitmo, wanting to revoke the Patriot act, leaving Iraq, more gun control. To reversing those positions slowly up to today.

Bill Clinton campaigned on cutting taxes and establishing a universal single payer healthcare system. To doing neither of that because cutting taxes would of not allowed the budget surplus in his second term. And the healthcare debacle became a mess that he led the democrats to lose the house of representatives in 40 years.

Reagan also had to raise some taxes back when the deficit grew.

And HW bush did it also despite promising "No new taxes"


In thr article she wants Obama to "argue for the positions" she wants. Even though he has already done so and many democrats were misguided about how much power a President really has. And no attempt at persuasion can change members of the other party to vote for what you want. And they don't have to because they were voted specifically to oppose the policies of the opposite party. Otherwise the voters would of voted for the party of the president. Let's remember that Bush campaigned after the 2004 election for an amendment to ban gay marriage and it dropped when not even his own party liked the idea. You can not force congress to vote to approve your idea just by talking about it.


Besides, Warren has little clue about Wall street besides left wing jargon. Its a bid disheartening when i hear people still to this day believe that the 2008 crisis had "one single cause and had it bwen stopped the crash wouldn't of happened"






You forgot a couple: Reagan grew the deficit and softened his stance on the cold war during the second term. There may even be more, but I can't think of any right now.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Washington Post puts odds of Hillary running at 99.99% on: October 14, 2014, 11:26:57 pm
By fall 2013, it started lookeinglike a good chance she would run.
19  General Discussion / History / Re: Why is Eisenhower so praised? on: October 10, 2014, 10:00:40 am
The economy was extremely volatile prior to the late 20th century compared to contemporary standards. For instance, there were three recessions during the "Roaring 20s." I am not quite sure why that is, but it may have to do with the fact that the service sector accounted for a smaller proportion of the economy and that it was less elastic than the industrial sector. In 1958 there was indeed a sharp recession, however by the end of the year it was clearly over and there was a sharp rebound in 1959. Overall, the economy of the Eisenhower 1950s can be classified as booming.

There was another recession in 1960.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Next six presidents on: October 09, 2014, 07:39:08 pm
I know I posted this yesterday on this thread, but I accidentally deleted it, so I'm going to repost it.

There's actually an interesting political cycle theory related to this.

This is how it goes:

Hoover-Carter: Both of these politically moderate presidents are considered failures, and because of them  an era of liberalism/conservatism begins.

FDR-Reagan: Both presidents considered heroes of the left/right, both ushered an era of liberalism/conservatism, and also "defeated" foreign enemies of the far-right (Nazi Germany), and the far-left (Soviet Union).

Truman-Bush 41: Both vice-presidents of the previous administration, and are one-termers who had really bad approval ratings by the time reelection came along, and failed to live up to the previous president. Both presidents also ended tensions with past enemies (Truman: Nazi Germany/ Bush 41: Soviet Union), and created new tensions (Truman: the beginning of the Cold War, Bush 41: beginning of tensions with the Middle-East with the Gulf War).

Eisenhower-Clinton: Both were moderate heroes, who ushered a decade of peace and prosperity.

JFK/LBJ-Bush/Cheney: Both Bush and JFK were members of a political dynasty, whose election to the presidency was against the vice-president of the former administration. The two vice-presidents (Nixon/Gore) were extremely uncharismatic, and lost the election by a razor-thin margin, despite the last president being very popular. Both JFK/LBJ and Bush/Cheney increased tensions severely with foreign enemies (Soviet Union/Middle-East), and ushers a decade of war (Vietnam/Iraq and Afghanistan).

Nixon-Obama: See this thread: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168317.0

So following this cyclical theory, a moderate Republican should win narrowly in 2016, and lose in 2020 to a far-left Democrat who ushers an era of liberal dominance.

It's all so neat; if only it went backwards. But I don't see the parallel between Coolidge and Nixon (or Obama for that matter). I think the better way to think about the parallelism in those two epochs is to study the events which shaped them, rather than the outcomes. From the way you've set the "cycles" up, they have a common origin in a financial crisis of catastrophic proportions which combined the incumbent presidents to 1 term and naturally led to the election of candidates who offered big shiny new solutions which became the defining dogma of their respective factions for the next several decades.

In 1980, there were a lot of economic problems, but far from "financial catastrophic proportions". I think it was a combination of things that made Jimmy Carter sort of the democratic Herbert Hoover.

About the democrats possibly dominating in this presidential cycle: It could more demographic than ideological. Who knows, though.

Domination cycles:

1800-1824

1828-1856

1860-1892

1896-1928

1932-1964

1968-2004

2008-
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Millennials Up For Grabs? on: October 06, 2014, 10:04:27 am
I don't really consider people in the late 90's/early 00's to be millennials.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Next six presidents on: October 04, 2014, 06:31:40 pm
I'm largely going by the 36-40 year cycle domination theory.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Economy as issue in 2016 - will it be better, worse or same? on: October 04, 2014, 04:04:03 pm
The same or slightly better.

This is actually the best year for job creation since 1999.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Next six presidents on: October 04, 2014, 02:58:36 pm
Predictions?

Hillary Clinton (2017-2025)
Marco Rubio (2025-2029)
Democrat (2029-2037)
Republican (2037-2041)
Democrat (2041-2049)
Republican (2049-2057)
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why is President Obama's approval so low? on: August 04, 2014, 11:02:28 pm
He's black.

Agreed.

His approval ratings should eventually rise if:

Economy continues its solid growth.

No major scandal.

World conflicts settle down.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines