03-09-2020, 01:27 PM
I haven't gotten a response from the moderator, so I'll just cut and paste my post in the "Fitting Trump in the Flow of History" thread here:
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 1.10 and a divisor of 1.05.
...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.
----
PBrower2a responded that he thought that Trump's 2020 vote percentage would drop perhaps down to 41.01% (Carter 1980). unlikely. To go from 45.93% down to 41.01% would equal a divisor of 1.119. Divisors like that only come with economic downturns, third party fratricide, or both. Coronavirus hysteria and Republican Never Trumper fantasies aside, that doesn't seem likely.
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 1.10 and a divisor of 1.05.
...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.
----
PBrower2a responded that he thought that Trump's 2020 vote percentage would drop perhaps down to 41.01% (Carter 1980). unlikely. To go from 45.93% down to 41.01% would equal a divisor of 1.119. Divisors like that only come with economic downturns, third party fratricide, or both. Coronavirus hysteria and Republican Never Trumper fantasies aside, that doesn't seem likely.