Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 20, 2019, 10:13:55 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  doesn't history favor Democrats for '08?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: doesn't history favor Democrats for '08?  (Read 2526 times)
Reignman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,237


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 15, 2005, 01:27:44 am »

Since Truman, we've had:

2 terms of GOP in the White House
2 terms of Dems
2 terms of GOP
1 terms of Dems
3 terms of GOP
2 terms of Dems
2 terms of GOP

Aside from that Carter/Reagan/Bush I hiccup, we've seen the White House see-saw back and forth every 8 years.

In the elections following two terms of one parties control, we have

1960- White House changes control
1968- White House changes control
1976- White House changes control
1988- White House doesn't change control
2000- White House changes control

However, in the elections following a president serving two full terms, we have

1960- White House changes control
1988- White House doesn't change control
2000- White House changes control

Therefore, if Bush completely serves his 2nd term, it would seem that chances that the Dems will take back the White House are worse.  You can argue that the only reason the White House changed control in '68 and '76 was unpopular current presidents (or, in '76, Nixon and not Ford, but then, Ford wasn't even elected).  If you argue this, it might be hard to believe that a 2/3 probability of the White House changing control isn't enough to justify a historical advantage for Democrats.

On the other hand, the reason the White House seems to change control every 8 years may simply be a desire for change that voters have after a couple terms of the same party.  This could have something to do with them (with the exception of the last few years) typically voting Democrats into Congress when Republicans won 5 of 6 presidential elections, and then when Clinton got in, the GOP got the House and Senate.

Of course, some would argue that the Democrats have far too many problems to whip themselves into shape anytime soon, but they've learned quite a few lessons just as the GOP did in '64, and pundits were saying the same thing about Republicans after the 1992 election.

To quote Bush Sr. when Bush Jr. announced he was running in 2000, "What goes around comes around."



Or not.  Maybe the GOP is gonna win in 2008.  Just a few thoughts about a historical pattern with American presidential elections in the last 50 years or so.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,801


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2005, 01:49:32 am »

although the pattern does favor Dems; I think people are too complex and it's impossible to really tell what will happen.  A lot can happen in four years that could hurt or help them. 
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2005, 01:49:58 am »

We've also had:

1896: Republican
1900: Republican
1904: Republican
1908: Republican
...
1920: Republican
1924: Republican
1928: Republican

1932: Democrat
1936: Democrat
1940: Democrat
1944: Democrat
1948: Democrat

We won seven of the last ten presidential elections. We could easily win '08.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,449


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2005, 07:32:32 am »

Historical parallels as such make very bad history owing to the fact that it takes events completely out of context. Any historian worth his salt wouldn't go along with that - history does not repeat itself ladies and gentlemen - context, it's all about context.
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2005, 07:36:59 am »

It's a tossup.  Bush 41 ran as a defacto Reagan, promising to continue his policies.  He didn't, so he lost his re-election.

Gore was wary of running as a defacto Clinton.  He had to walk a tightrope of continuing Clinton's economic policis, while at the same time trying to distance himself as much as possible from Clinton himself.  Ultimately, he was unsuccessful, at least in the EC.

Their is no heir apparent in the GOP, while the Dems have one in Hillary.  We (GOP) really need to cultivate some candidates with a realistic shot at carrying the White House, and no, Rudy and McCain won't cut it.
Logged
Joe Republic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34,697
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2005, 01:45:25 pm »

Historical parallels as such make very bad history owing to the fact that it takes events completely out of context. Any historian worth his salt wouldn't go along with that - history does not repeat itself ladies and gentlemen - context, it's all about context.

Ditto.

I agree its fun to look at historical patterns and wonder 'what if...?', but unfortunately patterns don't usually apply when trying to tell the future.

Looking back at the last election, you could have argued that Kerry would have won hands down, because of the following:
1. No president who originally lost the PV had ever won re-election.
2. Bush's approval ratings throughout 2004 were relatively very low for an incumbent.  Going by history, this was a very bad sign for re-election prospects.
3. The challenger was a liberal Catholic senator from Massachusetts with the initials 'JFK'.  Sound familiar?

There are other points too, but I forget them right now.

The majority of people don't usually vote in elections based on what happened in the past, unless its actually relevant.
Logged
TomC
TCash101
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,896


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2005, 09:48:00 pm »

Yeah, and remember the curse of Presidents elected in years that ended in zero? What ever happened to that trend?
Logged
zorkpolitics
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,181
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2005, 10:04:35 pm »

Several Political scientist's election models award a 4 yr. incumbent an extra 5% as an incumbent.   But the in party candidate after 8 yrs. has no incumbent advantage.  Also in some models a time for a change effect gives the in party candidate a negative 2-3%.  However, those models are based on VPs running (Truman, Nixon, Bush, Gore), since 2008 will lack a VP candidate, both parties are free to be the party of change. 
So no I don't think 2008 will favor the Democrats, like all elections it will depend on the economy, war and peace, and scandals to tilt the electorate towards the democrats (if things are bad) or the Republicans (if things are good).
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,504
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2005, 04:26:22 am »

The only thing History favours is historians
Logged
senorboogie woogie
Rookie
*
Posts: 23


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2005, 10:48:35 am »


Hola!

The Democrats are more or less stupid in national politics. Democrats more or less get elected when the Republican is very unpopular (see 1980 and 1992)

1992 Clinton/Gore broke the mold because both men were from the South, fairly good looking men who were very articulate. Thus Clinton won states that no other Democrat can in the deep south.

2008, find someone young, handsome and popular. Find a personable personality who can talk to the voters. Preferrably from the south or midwest. Nominate a Governor, not a Senator.

If the donkeys nominate Hillary, she'll win Massachuttes, New York, Vermont and possibly one or two other states. The American people did not like John Kerry either, he was just the only alternative to Bush. IF John Edwards was popular in North Carolina (he's not) and had at least 10 years Washington experience (he doesn't) he would be fine (but he's not).

Republicans don't have anybody good on their side either. 2008 might be the year we elect someone from outside the mainstream like Carter in 1976. And, be prepared to see every person who has a hat to throw it in the ring.

My two bits.

Senor
Logged
J.R. Brown
Rutzay
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 717
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2005, 11:19:43 am »

I really think that its anyone's ballgame at this point. Starting in 1968 the party system has sort of realigned into a system of divided government, where one party is in control of one branch of govenment while the other party is in control of another branch.

Republicans:
Presidency-1969-77, 1981-93, 2001-present
Senate-1981-87, 1995-2001, 2003-present
House-1995-present

Democrats:
Presidency-1977-81, 1993-2001
Senate-1969-81, 1987-95, 2001-03
House-1969-95
Logged
ian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,466


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -1.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2005, 02:50:36 pm »

Yeah, and remember the curse of Presidents elected in years that ended in zero? What ever happened to that trend?

Or when the Washington Redskins win their last home game before election day, the incumbent party wins.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 16, 2005, 03:30:14 pm »

You cannot use 1960-present as the standard.  The Kennedy assasination (and the events following) made the country extreme unstable until Reagan.  We basically had four guys (in a row) in the White House who probably never would have been President if not for the assasination.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC