Almost impossible to knock off a first term incumbent
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:47:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Almost impossible to knock off a first term incumbent
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Almost impossible to knock off a first term incumbent  (Read 5154 times)
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2016, 04:28:22 PM »

Warren has been talking reform for ages and is actually serious about reforming the system, so I think she'd be more of a threat than some people think. Plus, if CFPB and Dodd Frank are wiped out, she has a clear opening.
Logged
andrew_c
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 454
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2016, 04:47:52 PM »

If Trump's presidency is the dumpster fire that many have predicted it to be, he'll probably lose.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2016, 05:27:35 PM »

I don't think it's remotely out of the question that Trump will be on the level of Hoover, Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr. in 2020.

A scarier fact is that it will have been twenty-eight years since the last time this happened, but that still doesn't mean he's impossible to beat. Bill Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama had specific advantages going into their re-elections that won't necessarily be there for Trump in 2020.

Also, the statistic in the OP isn't what it sounds like: in the last century there have been 14 elections in which a first-term incumbent has run for re-election, so challengers have a track record of 4/14 or 2/7.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 22, 2016, 05:41:43 PM »

The one with more charisma wins? The problems that Carter and Hoover had in winning re-election had nothing to do with charisma.

Here is how Donald Trump loses:

1. Civil unrest. Donald Trump ran on a racist campaign, and millions of people are going to dislike it because he has gored their ox or because they abhor racism even it is supposedly for their (white) tribe. We will see lots of protests and demonstrations.

2. Economic meltdown. Do seven-year recoveries last long beyond the administration under which they started when the next President changes everything? I doubt it. Get an economic meltdown or high inflation by recent standards, and Donald Trump's legacy is toast.

3. Military or diplomatic catastrophes. War can be great for the profits of merchants of death, but when the body bags return to people who don't understand why the war continues, that all changes. Anti-war demonstrations bring us back to #1.

4. Perceived corruption. I am not predicting that Donald Trump or the GOP will start using the federal treasury as personal piggy banks, but it that happens, then the Republicans own it all.

Donald Trump has no experience in elective office, high appointed office (like Cabinet Secretary or Director of the CIA) or senior military leadership. He is going to try to run the federal government much like Trump Corporation, the only model that he knows for how to administer anything. People who now take the delight when a businessman and not a politician starts running the government like a business so that it will be as ruthlessly efficient as a business with profit-and-loss are going to find that much of government (like welfare, the military, foreign policy, and justice) does not run well that way -- and for that Donald Trump will get it all wrong or have no idea.  

Practically all liberals see no home in things going well for Donald Trump as President even when they disregard ideology.

The opinion that Americans have of Barack Obama will remain high, and all that the Democrats have to do to win the Presidency in 2020 is to have someone who reminds America of the last President generally seen as good by at least 50% of the electorate.      
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 22, 2016, 06:37:47 PM »

The one with more charisma wins? The problems that Carter and Hoover had in winning re-election had nothing to do with charisma.

Here is how Donald Trump loses:

1. Civil unrest. Donald Trump ran on a racist campaign, and millions of people are going to dislike it because he has gored their ox or because they abhor racism even it is supposedly for their (white) tribe. We will see lots of protests and demonstrations.

2. Economic meltdown. Do seven-year recoveries last long beyond the administration under which they started when the next President changes everything? I doubt it. Get an economic meltdown or high inflation by recent standards, and Donald Trump's legacy is toast.

3. Military or diplomatic catastrophes. War can be great for the profits of merchants of death, but when the body bags return to people who don't understand why the war continues, that all changes. Anti-war demonstrations bring us back to #1.

4. Perceived corruption. I am not predicting that Donald Trump or the GOP will start using the federal treasury as personal piggy banks, but it that happens, then the Republicans own it all.

Donald Trump has no experience in elective office, high appointed office (like Cabinet Secretary or Director of the CIA) or senior military leadership. He is going to try to run the federal government much like Trump Corporation, the only model that he knows for how to administer anything. People who now take the delight when a businessman and not a politician starts running the government like a business so that it will be as ruthlessly efficient as a business with profit-and-loss are going to find that much of government (like welfare, the military, foreign policy, and justice) does not run well that way -- and for that Donald Trump will get it all wrong or have no idea.  

Practically all liberals see no home in things going well for Donald Trump as President even when they disregard ideology.

The opinion that Americans have of Barack Obama will remain high, and all that the Democrats have to do to win the Presidency in 2020 is to have someone who reminds America of the last President generally seen as good by at least 50% of the electorate.      

As great as that all sounds, it seems that people don't really care much about Trump being corrupt. They just think it is part of his charisma. He's the bad boy that always brings someone home. I can actually see the war thing being a pro for Trump. Being a "War President" gets you reelected though it didn't work for Johnson or Truman. Bush II solidified himself with Iraq, even if it seemed that a slim majority of Americans were against it by November 2004.

With those caveats, there is a high chance that Trump does something that finally is straw the breaks the camel's back though I imagine that comes after there is a new Congress there that is willing to investigate it. The economy running out of steam or that right now a bubble is forming and will soon burst will be enough to give Democrats back Congress or at least the House. It will probably take more than that to finish off Trump. The double-dip wasn't enough to stop Reagan and a weak economy was able to slow down but not beat Clinton, Bush II, or Obama.

All in all, it is my guess is that Trump won't do himself in and that Democrats still have their work cut out for them.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 22, 2016, 07:02:03 PM »

Bush II solidified himself with Iraq, even if it seemed that a slim majority of Americans were against it by November 2004.

I don't think that's right.  I think 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan (and the fact that there were no followup terrorist attacks on US soil, allowing Bush to claim that "we're winning" the War on Terror) solidified Bush.  Iraq was probably a net negative for him by November 2004.  Though I guess it's possible that with no Iraq War, the Dem. primary contest would have gone differently, and the Dems might have nominated someone more electable than Kerry.

I'd say that the unpopular part of war is American casualties.  Bombing isn't unpopular, because few of the American pilots will die.  But occupying armies can lead to American casualties, and that's what can be politically risky.  Trump's foreign policy rhetoric tends to be Jacksonian.  He doesn't care about democracy promotion or nation building, so he's likely to bomb places without leaving occupying armies, which presumably will minimize the domestic political blowback.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2016, 07:12:18 PM »

Bush II solidified himself with Iraq, even if it seemed that a slim majority of Americans were against it by November 2004.

I don't think that's right.  I think 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan (and the fact that there were no followup terrorist attacks on US soil, allowing Bush to claim that "we're winning" the War on Terror) solidified Bush.  Iraq was probably a net negative for him by November 2004.  Though I guess it's possible that with no Iraq War, the Dem. primary contest would have gone differently, and the Dems might have nominated someone more electable than Kerry.

I'd say that the unpopular part of war is American casualties.  Bombing isn't unpopular, because few of the American pilots will die.  But occupying armies can lead to American casualties, and that's what can be politically risky.  Trump's foreign policy rhetoric tends to be Jacksonian.  He doesn't care about democracy promotion or nation building, so he's likely to bomb places without leaving occupying armies, which presumably will minimize the domestic political blowback.


So, basically how the Late Roman Empire dealt with the Germans? Just go in, kill a bunch of them and tell them that you will kill more of them if they don't do X,Y, and Z?
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 22, 2016, 10:50:59 PM »

Incidentally if 25% of Presidents lose as this stat seems to imply, the consider the last three Presidents were Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. We're due for one!

Yeah the logic and math there is very faulty, but it's not any less sound than the OP.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,067


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 22, 2016, 11:07:12 PM »

Almost impossible seems an overstatement, maybe 'hard' to unseat a first term incumbent.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 23, 2016, 01:12:32 AM »

Almost impossible seems an overstatement, maybe 'hard' to unseat a first term incumbent.

The fact that Beet included the word "almost" makes me suspect that Trump is doomed.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 23, 2016, 07:03:22 AM »



This is the 1980 map Carter SHOULD have rung up, had he run a better campaign.

I also think that this, and perhaps IL and WA would have gone for Carter if there had been no Kennedy challenge.  The Democrats of 1980 were in denial as to how up against it they were in the EC and how fortunate they were to have, as an incumbent President, the only candidate that could carry something close to the Solid South.  The states I projected Carter to lose in the South were the states that had the largest number of Northerners, states that are the MOST Democratic in the South today.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 23, 2016, 08:53:51 AM »

Incidentally if 25% of Presidents lose as this stat seems to imply, the consider the last three Presidents were Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. We're due for one!

Yeah the logic and math there is very faulty, but it's not any less sound than the OP.

We also have to consider since 1896, how many 1st termers never finish thier terms. We had 1920 and 1960 work out like that. So there is really a historical 40% chance there will be no President Re-elect Trump on 11/23/20.
Logged
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 23, 2016, 11:42:43 AM »

I guess the thread should've said "first-term incumbent who is serving the first term for his party." That would have made a lot of these responses unnecessary.

Yeah, Carter in '80 proves it CAN be done, but pretty much everything that could've gone wrong did go wrong for him.

Logged
coloradocowboi
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,621
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 23, 2016, 11:53:05 AM »


As great as that all sounds, it seems that people don't really care much about Trump being corrupt. They just think it is part of his charisma. He's the bad boy that always brings someone home.


This isn't even remotely true. It's just a slim majority in a handful of states thought Clinton was more corrupt and part of a corrupt establishment.
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 23, 2016, 11:57:07 AM »

title is definition of concern trolling
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 23, 2016, 12:11:55 PM »


As great as that all sounds, it seems that people don't really care much about Trump being corrupt. They just think it is part of his charisma. He's the bad boy that always brings someone home.


This isn't even remotely true. It's just a slim majority in a handful of states thought Clinton was more corrupt and part of a corrupt establishment.

As corrupt as he was, he shouldn't have won. PERIOD. Maybe Clinton was really that bad. 2020 will tell and we will know
Logged
BlueSwan
blueswan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,293
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2016, 02:45:42 PM »

The more charismatic candidate always wins.
Eh...except that Trump really only won due to an electoral anomaly. He lost the popular vote by likely around 2 million votes or what amounts to more than 1½ percentage points.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2016, 03:09:19 PM »

I guess the thread should've said "first-term incumbent who is serving the first term for his party." That would have made a lot of these responses unnecessary.

Yeah, Carter in '80 proves it CAN be done, but pretty much everything that could've gone wrong did go wrong for him.



that would make the sample size even smaller Tongue
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 23, 2016, 03:28:17 PM »

When was the last time the pv loser got this low of a share of the vote and still won?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 23, 2016, 03:52:02 PM »

When was the last time the pv loser got this low of a share of the vote and still won?

No PV loser/EV winner has ever gotten this low share of the vote.
Logged
m4567
Rookie
**
Posts: 220
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 23, 2016, 04:34:39 PM »

In the past century, this has only happened four times (Hoover, Ford, Carter, H.W. Bush), and of those four, only one of those times (Carter) did the incumbent's party control the White House for no more than four years. Food for thought.

There's also never been four 2-term presidents in a row.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 23, 2016, 08:42:23 PM »

When was the last time the pv loser got this low of a share of the vote and still won?

Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876.

Hayes won by 1 electoral vote in a post-election free-for-all that involved all sorts of allegations of corruption, and the whole affair almost started a 2nd Civil War.  The matter was settled by a compromise:  A Republican President in exchange for the end of Reconstruction and interference in the internal affairs of the Southern states by the Federal Government.

I don't think that a candidate who got this few electoral votes got as much more of the popular vote as Hillary Clinton.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 23, 2016, 08:45:39 PM »
« Edited: November 23, 2016, 09:03:57 PM by Spicy Purrito »

When was the last time the pv loser got this low of a share of the vote and still won?

Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876.

Hayes won by 1 electoral vote in a post-election free-for-all that involved all sorts of allegations of corruption, and the whole affair almost started a 2nd Civil War.  The matter was settled by a compromise:  A Republican President in exchange for the end of Reconstruction and interference in the internal affairs of the Southern states by the Federal Government.

I don't think that a candidate who got this few electoral votes got as much more of the popular vote as Hillary Clinton.
Basically, it would be as if we agreed to Trump in exchange for Scalia's and Ginsburg's seat and a "truce" on healthcare for 5 years or something like that.

But again, this drives home the narrative that the system is rigged against "people like us" and that the election was rigged, even if no one actually cheated that much.
Logged
pikachu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,180
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: November 23, 2016, 09:36:24 PM »

As great as that all sounds, it seems that people don't really care much about Trump being corrupt. They just think it is part of his charisma. He's the bad boy that always brings someone home. I can actually see the war thing being a pro for Trump. Being a "War President" gets you reelected though it didn't work for Johnson or Truman. Bush II solidified himself with Iraq, even if it seemed that a slim majority of Americans were against it by November 2004.

With those caveats, there is a high chance that Trump does something that finally is straw the breaks the camel's back though I imagine that comes after there is a new Congress there that is willing to investigate it. The economy running out of steam or that right now a bubble is forming and will soon burst will be enough to give Democrats back Congress or at least the House. It will probably take more than that to finish off Trump. The double-dip wasn't enough to stop Reagan and a weak economy was able to slow down but not beat Clinton, Bush II, or Obama.

All in all, it is my guess is that Trump won't do himself in and that Democrats still have their work cut out for them.

It really depends on how bad the scandal would be. We haven't had a massive media circus scandal since Monica, and if we want to go back further, Iran-Contra or Watergate. If something happens on that level, which with Trump I don't see being an impossibility, that'd be very bad for his reelection prospects (obviously).

On the economy, it's also important to remember that Reagan/Clinton/Obama pretty much their first elections because the economy was sh**. Trump otoh won in a situation where the economy is ok, and if it gets any worse over the next four years, the blame's going to placed on him and the GOP.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: November 23, 2016, 10:44:16 PM »

*Donald Trump squeezes together a winning electoral coalition comprised of 46% of the vote, which won four crucial states by under a point and a half each.*

"Trump is invincible!"

We'll see, but I tend to think that Trump's popularity in MI and PA will fade if he doesn't successfully accomplish his (basically impossible) promise to turn back the clock on employment prospects in unskilled positions there. Four years from now the Dems need to point out that he's just another politician making wild promises he doesn't keep.

Yeah, they threw a fit because Obama didn't buy them all a pony after eight years. They were desperate enough to turn to Trump - they're not going to show him any patience four years from now when he hasn't "brought the jobs back."
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« 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 0.066 seconds with 13 queries.