Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
05-23-2019, 12:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-23-2019, 12:10 PM by Kinser79.)
Really Mr. Horn...that's what you come back with? Biased Academics being quoted in a biased publication, and calling said publication and academic biased proves their point. It seems to me of the two of us it is you who rode the short bus to school. I'm cominbing to conclude debating you is on par with debating the village idiot. Are you trying to put poor Eric out of a job?
The simple fact of the matter is Trump is now in as strong a position as Obama or W ever were. But don't believe me. Don't believe the aggregated polls. It won't be the first time you've been proven wrong on this forum. And appeals to authority (of which the NYT has none) won't save you or the Democratic Party.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(05-23-2019, 12:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Really Mr. Horn...that's what you come back with? Biased Academics being quoted in a biased publication, and calling said publication and academic biased proves their point. It seems to me of the two of us it is you who rode the short bus to school. I'm cominbing to conclude debating you is on par with debating the village idiot. Are you trying to put poor Eric out of a job?
The simple fact of the matter is Trump is now in as strong a position as Obama or W ever were. But don't believe me. Don't believe the aggregated polls. It won't be the first time you've been proven wrong on this forum. And appeals to authority (of which the NYT has none) won't save you or the Democratic Party.
Academics tend to be fact based, and this article offered more than one viewpoint based on … wait for it … actual evidence.
FWIW, the NY Times is a liberal but basically straight forward news source. You quote wacko YouTube pundits and we're supposed to take THEM seriously. Really?
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 65
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2018
(05-17-2019, 01:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...Trump is not going to lose a 45-state landslide, but he projects to lose at least as badly as the elder Bush in 1992.
Δ for reelection of a previously elected incumbent:
Taft
1908: 51.57%
1912: 23.17%
(2.226)
Wilson
1912: 41.84%
1916: 49.24%
1.177
Hoover
1928: 58.21%
1932: 58.21%
(1.468)
FDR
1932: 57.41%
1936: 60.80%
1.059
FDR
1936: 60.80%
1940: 54.74%
(1.111)
FDR
1940: 54.74%
1944: 53.39%
(1.025)
Ike
1952: 55.18%
1956: 57.37%
1.040
Nixon
1968: 43.42%
1972: 60.67%
1.397
Carter
1976: 50.08%
1980: 41.01%
(1.221)
Reagan
1980: 50.75%
1984: 58.77%
1.158
GHW Bush
1988: 53.37%
1992: 37.45%
(1.425)
Clinton
1992: 43.01%
1996: 49.24%
1.145
GW Bush
2000: 47.87%
2004: 50.73%
1.059
Obama
2008: 52.93%
2012: 51.06%
(1.037)
Δ for reelection of a previously elected incumbent:
Taft
1908: 51.57%
1912: 23.17%
(2.226)
Wilson
1912: 41.84%
1916: 49.24%
1.177
Hoover
1928: 58.21%
1932: 58.21%
(1.468)
FDR
1932: 57.41%
1936: 60.80%
1.059
FDR
1936: 60.80%
1940: 54.74%
(1.111)
FDR
1940: 54.74%
1944: 53.39%
(1.025)
Ike
1952: 55.18%
1956: 57.37%
1.040
Nixon
1968: 43.42%
1972: 60.67%
1.397
Carter
1976: 50.08%
1980: 41.01%
(1.221)
Reagan
1980: 50.75%
1984: 58.77%
1.158
GHW Bush
1988: 53.37%
1992: 37.45%
(1.425)
Clinton
1992: 43.01%
1996: 49.24%
1.145
GW Bush
2000: 47.87%
2004: 50.73%
1.059
Obama
2008: 52.93%
2012: 51.06%
(1.037)
Source: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1944&f=0&off=0&elect=0
OK, the above didn't translate well from my word doc, but the above shows the difference between each incumbent president's election and reelection bids. The last number is the multiplier or divider of the two. Using the Taft example, he got 51.57% in 1909, then 23.17% in 1912. Taft's drop was a divisor of 2.226.
Anyway, if you take out POTUSs effected by economic downturns or whose vote percentage was effected (for good or ill) by substantial facing third party candidates, the differences stay in a fairly narrow range, between a multiplier of 1.100 and a divisor of 1.05.
I haven't seen an election prediction thread. Is there one?
FWIW, I'd compare Trump's reelection bid to that of GW Bush's reelection bid, or 45.93% x 1.059 = 48.63%. The Democrat will get 49.77%, based on the "miscellaneous" vote getting 1.6% of the vote (6.03% divided by 3.75%). Based on the likely variation in that increase on a state by state basis, Trump gets about 294 electoral votes.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
03-07-2020, 12:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2020, 09:20 PM by pbrower2a.)
Maybe I needed to be clearer. I think that Trump is going to end up with a percentage of the popular vote similar to that of Carter in 1980 (about 41%) which is about 5% off his percentage of the popular vote in 2012. The states are much more polarized than when Carter was President, so it will be harder for Trump to lose more than 400 electoral votes... but he can.
Every state that he won or lost by 10% or less has at one time or another shown an approval number lower than his disapproval number. It is difficult to win a state under those circumstances, barring a split on the Other Side. The elder Bush had Ross Perot taking away more potential R votes than D votes in 1992. The elder Bush lost to Bill Clinton 370-168.
The difference between Trump going into 2020 and Dubya going into 2004 is most obviously that Dubya got away with much trouble that would not become obvious until after he was re-elected. I don't see Trump's "my way or the highway" attitude winning over any significant number of added Republican voters. Getting those new voters will be difficult because although the oldest voters (55+)of 2016 will have a significant die-off (about 1.5% per year) among groups that are roughly 5% more R than D (Silent, Boom, and first-wave X) the new, younger voters under 40 are about 20% more D than R. That itself suggests a 1.5% shift in the vote from 2016 to 2000 if nothing else happens. That alone will be enough to flip Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin from Trump wins to Trump losses. Florida is within that range, except that Florida tends to get a steady stream of older voters... but if that happens, then the shift occurs elsewhere, as in Arizona or North Carolina. Ouch.
Dubya had his faults, but he was not impeached. There remains some ideological divide on whether Trump should or should not have been removed... but impeachment requires two-thirds of the Senate in concurrence to that effect.
Now -- what does Trump have to offer younger voters to offset the partisan edge that recent voting behavior suggests? Not much. The tax cuts reward people who have tax bills. Trump promised infrastructure -- but with roads, such means "add tolls", which will do more to lighten traffic loads than to lead to improvements. Economic inequality, which generally hurts younger workers who endure the lowest pay in the workforce, is at a level not known since the 1920's. Young adults are often deep in debt for college degrees necessary for getting white collar work other than retail sales... and they see low glass ceilings for them unless they are born into the "right family".
Trump fits Millennial values badly. Millennial adults as a group have little use for racism, ethnocentrism, or religious bigotry. His pattern of disregard for objective truth (if not outright lying) offends a Civic generation that, like others in the past, prefers reason to propaganda. The Millennial Generation has voted in low numbers so far -- at least until 2018. I look at the 2018 midterm election as a suggestion that electoral behavior of Millennial adults is changing; they seem set to vote in large numbers. It is my assumption that people who start voting in increased numbers keep voting until they are no longer able to vote due to death or debility.
I am satisfied that President Trump will keep a strong hold on his base of old, anti-intellectual voters who accept the promise of pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die. Maybe people in their seventies are more concerned about the more imminent Hereafter than are whippersnappers in their twenties whop assume that they have much life ahead of them to suffer or endure depending to no small part on the economic conditions in which they live. I also expect that the Right will do everything possible to make politics confusing. Trump won in part by soiling the political process so that people who like their politics to not go into the ideological and moral cesspool to decide that political life is just too dirty for them. .
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 65
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2018
For some reason I must have posted double while trying to fix the transfer from worddoc to 4TF. Oops!
I also discovered that there's a political discussion thread. I asked the moderator to move my post to a new thread i created there. See you then.
Posts: 65
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2018
[quote='David Horn' pid='43709' dateline='1558464573']
[quote='Eric the Green' pid='43708' dateline='1558463433']
A cabinet post for Buttigieg seems a natural fit for him. That's an executive post. As a nominee, he would be a charming loser.
[/quote]
...His biggest handicap, and greatest strength, is his youth...
[/quote]
Ah! how soon they forget! From one of my posts in 2008, with followups:
[QUOTE=jamesdglick;224235]This isn't specifically S&H generational theory, but it was inspired by the presidential list in the Appendix of "Generations":
A list of the ages of the 1st term, non-incumbent winners on election day since 1932 (DOB; Election Day):
Reagan 69 yrs, 8 mos, 29 days (b. 6 FEB 1911) (4 NOV 1980)
Bush 64 yrs, 4 mos, 21 days (b. 12 JUN 1924) (2 NOV 1988)
Ike 62 yrs, 0 mos, 21 days (b. 14 OCT 1890) (4 NOV 1952)
Nixon 55 yrs, 9 mos, 27 days (b. 9 JAN 1913) (5 NOV 1968)
Bush 54 yrs, 3 mos, 29 days (b. 6 JUL 1946) (4 NOV 2000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carter 52 yrs, 1 mo, 1 day (b. 1 OCT 1924) (2 NOV 1976)
FDR 50 yrs, 9 mos, 1 day (b. 30 JAN 1882) (1 NOV 1932)
Clinton 46 yrs, 2 mos, 15 days (b. 19 AUG 1946) (3 NOV 1992)
JFK 43 yrs, 6 mos, 3 days (b. 29 MAY 1917) (1 NOV 1960)
Truman, LBJ, and Ford aren't included, since their "1st term" came upon taking office to complete their POTUS's term; when they ran for president, they were already incumbents (and Ford lost anyway).
The "R's" are all of the old guys, the "D's" are all of the young guys.
A long time ago, I remember it being said that Americans vote for old "R's" & young "D's", but I haven't heard it recently...
---
It's held good for 2008, 2012, and 2016. IOW, Democrats Have to go young. Of course, 37 is an extreme case...
Posts: 868
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2016
(05-16-2019, 02:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Quote:Trump is “in the same structural position as Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter,”
Well just that fragment of a sentence means I can ignore this article even if I didn't know that already by hearing it was published in the New York Times (which is a shadow of its former self in reputation--seriously is there nothing that Boomers touch that doesn't turn into shit?).
Trump's aggregate polls have him sitting at around 45% approval when running against an amorphous blob that is the DNC. Get him against an other human and he'll blow them out of the water. Get him against Joe Biden,arguably the only person the Democrats have who could remotely take him on and he'll hit Landslide territory.
-- u have got 2 be joking about Groper Joe. Oh l agree the Donald will pulverize him- bcuz he's in no condition 2 take the Donald on. He's senile af 4 chrissakes. i don't know what the DNC is thinking pimping that senile old assclown
 my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-10-2020, 05:08 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- u have got 2 be joking about Groper Joe. Oh l agree the Donald will pulverize him- bcuz he's in no condition 2 take the Donald on. He's senile af 4 chrissakes. i don't know what the DNC is thinking pimping that senile old assclown
Your attitude is a perfect example why the PTB in the party are completely unwilling to accept Bernie under any circumstances … and they have the power. If your plan is suicide, you're on your way.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Trump: unmitigated disaster.
He appeals to the worst in people, and brings such out.
He trivializes learning, experience, and expertise when those contradict him. The only way in which one can see him positively is if one agrees with his agenda.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
03-11-2020, 03:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2020, 06:38 PM by pbrower2a.)
Link to the thread introducing us to the Skowronek cycle:
http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...e#pid49017
Trump looks like the end of the line for an era of profits-first, people-never ideology that Reagan introduced with some temporary success. It has shaped the political discussion, but toward the end the focus leads to either a leader carrying things out past the "sell-by" date or who botches things badly.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
|
