History shows Hillary unlikely to win
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:57:50 AM
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
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: History shows Hillary unlikely to win  (Read 1588 times)
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 19, 2014, 04:15:24 PM »

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120303/democrats-hillary-clinton-could-lose-2016-presidential-election

While this is certainly true and she has the last 8 years working against her, the possibility of facing an uncontested primary, unpopular Republican and the changing demographics work in her favor. It's sort of like saying the Game 7 home team is favored, true but plenty of exceptions.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2014, 04:19:06 PM »

http://xkcd.com/1122/
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2014, 04:25:32 PM »

A Democrat can't win the presidency without West Virginia. Anyone in Richard Burr's seat can't win re-election. An incumbent Pennsylvania governor can't lose re-election.

More and more of these "truisms" are proven false every election.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2014, 04:27:55 PM »


LOL, thanks for posting this. I actually was going to but I couldn't find it.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2014, 04:28:18 PM »

Voters will not want a third Obama term.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2014, 04:30:13 PM »


He's running again? I guess the GOP is right and he has complete disregard for the constitution. Then again he still has to get past Hillary in the primary.
Logged
NHI
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,140


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2014, 04:32:12 PM »

Bush 41 won in 1988 despite 8 years of Ronald Reagan. Historical trends or patterns are proven wrong each election it seems (no president has been reelected with unemployment above 7.2%...). Hillary Clinton will be judged on her own merits should she ultimately decide to run and if she wins I think it will be less about Obama and more about the quality of the Republican candidate. A strong candidate from my party (Bush, Christie perhaps Walker) could defeat Clinton with a winning message and coalition, but we will wait and see...
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2014, 04:57:15 PM »

Bush 41 had a dropoff from Reagan's reelection. A similar dropoff for Hillary would result in a Republican president.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2014, 05:06:32 PM »

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/the-white-house-is-not-a-metronome/
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2014, 05:12:39 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.
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,611
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2014, 05:14:12 PM »


Don't count on the RNC to capitalize on that. If this summer's "Putting another Clinton in the White House is nuts" chipmunk campaign is any indication, they are also going to attack her for her association to Bill, which is actually her greatest strength.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 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
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,999
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2014, 05:17:30 PM »

Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,611
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2014, 05:20:37 PM »

They didn't really want a second Obama term, but his campaign destroyed Romney's image early on. The popularity of the current President isn't necessarily a great indicator of which party the next one will come from.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2014, 05:22:20 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.)

Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2014, 05:58:59 PM »

Clinton is a big enough political figure that she can distinguish herself from Obama.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 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
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,624
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2014, 06:27:03 PM »

A black liberal college professor from Chicago with a name that sounds like Osama will lose in a landslide to a Real American Hero with bipartisan record like John McCain.
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,999
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2014, 07:55:36 PM »

Clinton is a big enough political figure that she can distinguish herself from Obama.

No chance for that.
First, she was his Secretary of State.
Second, she will be asked direct questions about his policies and what she intends to do about them. If she supports them - she's gonna be labeled third Obama term. If she rejects them - she's gonna alienate the base.

Just remember what a simple question:

"Did you vote for President Obama in 2008 and 2012?"

did to Alison Lundergan Grimes.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2014, 08:17:20 PM »

Obama won 51.06%. Demographics are not likely to be that radically different, thus making that Hillary's ceiling for a variety of reasons.

Given the political system, by design, weakens the incumbent party's grip on power over time (every successor to the incumbent party has seen a popular vote drop off), what is there to prevent Hillary from dropping off in a similar fashion? Why do you believe demographics would make the dropoff inelastic, e.g, not happening?

Most figures are presented from the final numbers. Some have been adjusted since there was a significant third party candidate. These are incumbent party to successor incumbent party candidate numbers.

1944-1948: (53.4 -- > 49.5%) (-3.9%) (D)
1948-1952: (49.5% --> 44.3%) (-5.2%) (D)
1956-1960: (57.4% --> 49.6%) (-7.8%) (R)
1964-1968: (61.05% --> 49.6% (of the two party vote) (-11.5%)  (D)
1984-1988: (58.8% --> 53.4%) (-5.4%) (R)
1996-2000: (54.7% --> 49.73%) (-5%) (Both figures two party share of popular vote) (D)
2004-2008: (50.7% --> 45.6%) (-5.1%)  (R)


Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 19, 2014, 08:24:32 PM »

Clinton is a big enough political figure that she can distinguish herself from Obama.

No chance for that.
First, she was his Secretary of State.
Second, she will be asked direct questions about his policies and what she intends to do about them. If she sides with them - she's gonna be labeled third Obama term. If she rejects them - she's gonna alienate the base.

Just remember what a simple question:

"Did you vote for President Obama in 2008 and 2012?"

did to Alison Lundergan Grimes.

1.) I said 'distinguish', not 'distance'.  She doesn't have to run from Obamacare.  She could say something along the lines of: 'Its a good program that has helped millions of people, but there are problems with it that need to be fixed and things that could be improved'.   

2.) Clinton already has her own identity. Its one thing to tie the 3 year Kentucky Secretary of State to the president.  Hillary Clinton has been a national figure for over 2 decades now.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2014, 08:28:02 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.

One pattern was that incumbents either add to their popular and electoral vote totals or lose altogether. President Obama did neither in 2012.

I got caught by one of the 'rules' that I discovered: I found a hole in the electoral results of elections from 1900 to 2008 in which the winner of the Presidential election got either more than 65% (McKinley)  of the electoral vote or less than 57% even if the mean was almost in the middle. I figured that the nominees projecting to win 40% of the electoral vote would either take desperate efforts to win and likely fail even to hold onto some of what he had (think of McCain in 2008) or make the vote much closer (the Ford charge in 1976).  Someone projecting to win 30% or so of the electoral vote was going to have a lackluster campaign; someone close was not going to gamble big on high-risk plays.

The 2012 Presidential election fit very well into the 'void' that proved non-existent. Had Romney won Florida, ny theory would have held.    
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 19, 2014, 08:45:05 PM »


(Modified to fit 2016):

Never-Wrong Pundit Pick(ed) Obama to Win in 2012

fromhttp://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/08/30/never-wrong-pundit-picks-obama-to-win-in-2012



“Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose,” says Lichtman, the brains behind The Keys to the White House.

Lichtman’s prediction helps to explain a quirk in some polling that finds that while Americans disapprove of the president, they still think he will win re-election. ...


Lichtman developed his 13 Keys in 1981. They test the performance of the party that holds the presidency. If six or more of the 13 keys go against the party in power, then the opposing party wins.“The keys have figured into popular politics a bit,” Lichtman says. “They’ve never missed. They’ve been right seven elections in a row. A number that goes way beyond statistical significance in a record no other system even comes close to.”

Lichtman’s earned quite the reputation. In 1992, it seemed likely former President George H.W. Bush would be re-elected, having reached historic highs in popularity after he launched a war that pushed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. But Lichtman thought otherwise and that factored into former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton’s decision to challenge Bush.“I got a call from this woman with a thick southern drawl. It was Clinton’s special assistant. She wanted to know if it was true that a Democrat could win. I assured her it was and I sent Clinton a copy of my book and a memo and the rest is history.” [See photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.]

In 2005, Lichtman also hit a home run when he said that the political stage was looking so bad for Republicans that Democrats could pick a name out of the phone book and win in 2008, the year a little known first-term senator became the first African-American to win the presidency.

Below are each of the keys and how it falls for Obama Hillary Clinton.

Party mandate:
After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections.

Definite failure for any Democrat.


Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama’s unchallenged status, “I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.” Obama (Clinton probably) wins this key.


Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

Definitely not.

Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point. If there will be a significant Third Party it will be a challenge to the GOP.


Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an “undecided.”

So would I.


Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

Too early to tell.

Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar.

Not likely.

Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Says Lichtman, “There wasn’t any social unrest when I made my predictions for 2012 and there still isn’t.”

Not happening, so a plus.

Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. “This administration has been squeaky clean. There’s nothing on scandal,” says Lichtman. Another Obama win.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don’t foresee anything.” Obama (Clinton likely) wins again.

Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. “Since Osama bin Laden was found and killed, I think Obama has achieved military success.” Obama wins his eighth key.

Obama has time to make this happen this time. If he must cut a deal with Iran to smash ISIS, then he will. Just not yet.

Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Explains Lichtman, “I did not give President Obama the incumbent charisma key. I counted it against him. He’s really led from behind. He didn’t really take the lead in the healthcare debate, he didn’t use his speaking ability to move the American people during the recession. He’s lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election.” Obama loses this key. [See political cartoons about President Obama.]

Hillary Clinton seems to have charisma.

Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t.” Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection.

No Republican offers charisma, and no Republican is a national hero.

Six positives; seven wins.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2014, 08:54:03 PM »

Didn't Silver demonstrate that Litchman was actually wrong over the long run? His calls were demonstrated to have miscalled some of the elections prior to 1932.

Nonetheless, don't some of the keys seem subjective to interpretation?
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2014, 08:54:52 PM »

Clinton is a big enough political figure that she can distinguish herself from Obama.

No chance for that.
First, she was his Secretary of State.
Second, she will be asked direct questions about his policies and what she intends to do about them. If she sides with them - she's gonna be labeled third Obama term. If she rejects them - she's gonna alienate the base.

Just remember what a simple question:

"Did you vote for President Obama in 2008 and 2012?"

did to Alison Lundergan Grimes.

1.) I said 'distinguish', not 'distance'.  She doesn't have to run from Obamacare.  She could say something along the lines of: 'Its a good program that has helped millions of people, but there are problems with it that need to be fixed and things that could be improved'.   

2.) Clinton already has her own identity. Its one thing to tie the 3 year Kentucky Secretary of State to the president.  Hillary Clinton has been a national figure for over 2 decades now.

And therein may lie the real problem for Hillary.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
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 0.064 seconds with 13 queries.