Presidential election, 2016

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2016, 08:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Let's see what the Lichtman test has to say:

Quote:   Key 1: The incumbent party (in this case, Democrats) holds more seats in the U. S. House of Representatives after the midterm election than after the preceding midterm election. False.

Make no mistake: the 2014 midterm election was a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Quote:Key 2: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. False.

Bernie Sanders put up a surprisingly-strong challenge to Hillary Clinton. Should Clinton and Sanders reconcile, the statement remains true but its significance becomes nil.

Quote:Key 3: The incumbent-party candidate is the current president. False.

The 22nd Amendment is in force and it will not be repealed in time for a Third Term for you-know-who.

I agree with False for the first 3. Bernie was a significant challenge, and some Bernie voters will not reconcile.

Quote:

Quote:Key 4: There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy. False

I see Gary Johnson and William Weld as the strongest President-Veep combination that any third Party or Independent campaign has offered since Theodore Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson in 1912. Both are ex-Governors, and for the first time ever we have a pair of Third Party nominees who have both held one of the offices (Vice-President, US Senator, or State Governor) that almost every elected President has held since Dwight Eisenhower.

But here's the catch. The key is typically a third-Party that rifts from the Party of the incumbent President, as with Perot in 1992 or Wallace in 1968. This time the Third Party nominee hurts the challenger's Party. Rewritten to fit the apparent reality of 2016. John Anderson in 1980 was a Republican, but he seemed to pick off many Democratic-leaning voters and few Republicans.

Quote:Key 4: There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy to the detriment of the incumbent Party. True.

Johnson/Weld will hurt Trump -- not Clinton. The Libertarian ticket draws little obvious support from Democrats except for Democrats to say "If you can't stand Hillary Clinton, you can at least vote for Johnson" to Republicans whose support for Trump might be shaky.

I don't see Johnson as significant enough to take Key 4 from Hillary.

Quote:

Quote:Key 5: The economy is not in recession during the campaign. True. [could change]

Time is running out for the possibility of an economic meltdown that people recognize as such.

Quote:Key 6: Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms. True.

The last twelve years had the severest and most protracted economic downturn since the Great Depression. Economic growth may not be strong since January 2013, but at least it is steady. It is not a speculative boom that can implode at any moment.

Quote:Key 7: The incumbent administration has effected major policy changes during the term. False.

The President can't even get the Republican-dominated Senate to hold a hearing on the Supreme Court nominee of his choosing. He really couldn't get any legislative success with the Republican Congress ensuring legislative failure for anything.

We will see how that plays out in November. There are just no precedents for that.

Quote:Key 8: There has been no major social unrest during the term. True.

See what happens at or near the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

Agree up to here, but this one I have already regarded as questionable, and as the cops vs. black unrest grows it could take this key from Hillary.

Quote:

Quote:Key 9: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. True.

This Administration is as squeaky-clean as any since at least Eisenhower.

Quote:Key 10: There has been no major military or foreign policy failure during the term. True.

A diplomat wandering into a burning building during a protest and getting killed by smoke inhalation doesn't qualify. It takes something major -- a major screw-up, like this:



See also the British invasion of the Chesapeake Bay area in the War of 1812, Fort Sumter, Little Big Horn, the Iranian hostage situation, and 9/11. Foul-ups that bad don't happen that often.

Quote:Key 11: There has been a major military or foreign policy success during the term. True.

Vastly-improved diplomatic relations with Cuba and Iran qualify. Daesh reels in Iraq, its impending demise taking down one of the vilest anti-American (and really anti-human) causes of all time as well as some loyalists of the despicable Saddam Hussein.

 

Quote:Key 12: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero. False.

Definitely so. Hillary Clinton lacks the charisma of Barack Obama.

Quote:Key 13: The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero. True.

Donald Trump has practically the opposite of charisma, repelling people who might ordinarily vote for a Republican nominee for President.

Trump has some charisma, more than Hillary; but his drawbacks seem to wipe out his advantage.

Quote:Six false, seven true; and of one of the false one might see an exception that illustrates the rule (basically, that a Third party or independent candidacy usually tears voters away from the incumbent Party. With my qualification (I believe justified) of the fourth Key, I end up with five false and eight true.

If the social unrest grows, then six false and seven true.