Forget debate: Two simple reasons a Republican will likely win in 2016

Dog Town

Banned
D
Joined
Aug 3, 2006
Messages
6,862
Here's to hoping this is WRONG! PLEASE!
If for no other reason than, I love my insurance!
Elections are not mysterious events subject to the whimsy of unpredictable candidates and voters. They’re actually highly predictable, with a set of variables that influence outcomes in familiar ways.

Because of that, we can say, with reasonable confidence, that a Republican will be moving into the White House in 2017.

That conclusion is based on the results of a data model we created, and is primarily the result of two factors, both related to the challenges faced by “successor” candidates — candidates from the same party as the incumbent. First, a Republican will win because voters typically shy away from the party currently in power when an incumbent isn’t running. In fact, a successor candidate is three times less likely to win. Second, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings are too low to suggest a successor candidate will take the White House.
Click to expand...
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...is-likely-to-win-in-2016/?utm_source=Facebook
 
And yet, the bookies consider the Democratic Party the favorite. And Hillary is close to even money while the Republican candidates start at 7:1 and move on up from there.

I am not saying the Democrats will win. I am just saying it is still a horse race and overeliance on general trends ignores the fact that in the end it is a competition between two very specific people. With very specific baggage and very specific skills.
 
Last edited:
I would guess that all other things being equal, the GOP has a better chance than the Democrats to win in 2016. As the article notes, incumbents tend to win, successors from the same party tend to lose. There's also two-term fatigue. Look at recent elections where one party has held the presidency for two terms or more:

2008: Incumbent party lost
2000: Incumbent party lost
1992: Incumbent party lost
1988: Incumbent party won
1976: Incumbent party lost
1968: Incumbent party lost
1960: Incumbent party lost
1952: Incumbent party lost

That's 1-7, a pretty miserable record.

Before that you do have the fairly remarkable string of three consecutive elections won by an incumbent party which had been in office for two or more terms, but all of those were won by the sitting President, a situation which seems very unlikely to arise in 2016 (Biden would have to become President before the election and then win the Democratic nomination).

You can say that past performance is not always indicative of future results. And it is possible that 1-7 record is a fluke. There are certainly some extremely close elections in there: 1960, 1968 and 2000 were squeakers that could have gone the other way.

But yeah, if I'm betting on this election I would bet the GOP to win.
 
Last edited:
I am not a political analyst, so I will not feel slighted if more knowledgeable posters correct me, but moving forward, theHouse Speaker election nuttiness could be a variable in the presidential election.

Also, a year is an eternity in a presidential election run up. All sorts of stuff can happen.
 
More wishful thinking. Clinton will be up against a clown of some sort, beholden to the Tea Party. She will win, regardless of the incumbency factor.
 
Ladewig said:
I am not a political analyst, so I will not feel slighted if more knowledgeable posters correct me, but moving forward, theHouse Speaker election nuttiness could be a variable in the presidential election.

Also, a year is an eternity in a presidential election run up. All sorts of stuff can happen.
Click to expand...

And a year after the House Speaker election nuttiness?
 
lionking said:
More wishful thinking. Clinton will be up against a clown of some sort, beholden to the Tea Party. She will win, regardless of the incumbency factor.
Click to expand...

Nixon was a clown, Reagan was a clown, Bush II was a clown.

You folks really have to get over the idea that everybody's got the same worldview as you. Otherwise half the time you will be amazed by what happens.
 
Brainster said:
Nixon was a clown, Reagan was a clown, Bush II was a clown.

You folks really have to get over the idea that everybody's got the same worldview as you. Otherwise half the time you will be amazed by what happens.
Click to expand...

Well, the bar keeps moving. Dubya's set a new standard. Nixon and Reagan were apprentices compared to GWB. But GWB will probably happily retire the crown if Trump gets nominated... or any of the top 3 (Trump, Carson or Fiorina). They all make GWB seem like the voice of sanity and coherency.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Well, the bar keeps moving. Dubya's set a new standard. Nixon and Reagan were apprentices compared to GWB. But GWB will probably happily retire the crown if Trump gets nominated... or any of the top 3 (Trump, Carson or Fiorina). They all make GWB seem like the voice of sanity and coherency.
Click to expand...

And that's my point. GWB was your garden variety, low grade clown, at home in a travelling circus. Trump et al are world class clowns worthy of a nation-wide comedy half hour.

As much as I admire and respect the US and its citizens, part of me wants to see it ruled by a complete loon.
 
Dog Town said:
Here's to hoping this is WRONG! PLEASE!
If for no other reason than, I love my insurance!

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...is-likely-to-win-in-2016/?utm_source=Facebook
Click to expand...

I would highly recommend you ditch whomever created that "model" and trust Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.

He's successfully predicted the last three or four Presidential elections and many elections in Congress as well. His mathematical model is nearly 95% accurate, I'd estimate. He's not just doing straight election predictions now, as he has his own site that does news and sports in addition to the predictions for elections, but he still follows the elections fairly closely and offers evidence-based commentary on all the candidates and their likelihood of making it to the White House. If it makes you feel any better, right now he's predicting Hillary, I think.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
We don't even know who will be on the ballot in November 2016 and they're already calling the results? Maroons.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's too early to call Democrat vs Clown. Is it at all possible that the Republicans will put forward a credible, non Tea Party endorsed candidate? I don't think so.
 
The problem with this kind of analysis is that the statistical sample is tiny. There's only one presidential election every four years, and the factors that influence the outcome are enormously complex. I wouldn't trust the pattern shown in the OP to have any predictive value at all.

Incidentally, the 2 term incumbent party won the popular vote in 2000, so you can chuck that one into the other column.
 
hgc said:
The problem with this kind of analysis is that the statistical sample is tiny. There's only one presidential election every four years, and the factors that influence the outcome are enormously complex. I wouldn't trust the pattern shown in the OP to have any predictive value at all.

Incidentally, the 2 term incumbent party won the popular vote in 2000, so you can chuck that one into the other column.
Click to expand...

Well, aside from the fact that the winner is determined by the electoral college and not by the popular vote, Bush was the clear favorite going into the weekend before the election. Polls had him up by 3% or more. Then the story of Bush's 25 year old DUI broke. I actually saw the effect with my own eyes, as the firm I worked for back then had retained Zogby to do polling for us. His poll the week before showed Bush winning comfortably, and then the poll he did for us the night before the election had it dead even. It was a very impressive result. Zogby has had a bad track record since, but he absolutely nailed the 2000 election for us. He said it would be a photo finish, and it was. Of course, the information didn't help us any (and it cost $50,000).

In general, though, of course the data is not terribly meaningful. There's no question that incumbent parties are at a disadvantage, despite the fact that incumbent Presidents are at an advantage. It's not going to make the difference between a good candidate and a bad candidate though. Hillary is not a good candidate, but the Democrats will be united behind her, and that's probably why she has the advantage in the betting. I think the bettors are overlooking her troubles with the email scandal, however. That's really serious stuff, and the Democrats could easily find themselves with a nominee under the cloud of an indictment.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
I do wonder what American politics would have become like if Great Lea- err, Roosevelt hadn't died.
Click to expand...

I bet nobody would be questioning whether Hillary or Bernie is too old to be President given that FDR would be 133 years old and own the record for human longevity, despite having been in poor health when he was much younger.
 
Sabrina said:
I would highly recommend you ditch whomever created that "model" and trust Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.
Click to expand...

First off, I don't ascribe to this! I merely posted it to see opinions. I have known Nate for a long time! "Lies, Damned Lies" was my favorite column for years! I was integral in getting him to speak at SXSW in 2009! Thank you, though!
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
I don't think it's too early to call Democrat vs Clown. Is it at all possible that the Republicans will put forward a credible, non Tea Party endorsed candidate? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Look on the bright side, most of the teabaggers will be dead and flushed down a toilet within 20 years!!!!!!!
 
aleCcowaN said:
So, it looks like being a clown is not an impediment to gain power and even be re-elected.

Viva El Trump! He is the most representative of all candidates. Truly American™
Click to expand...

The US is certainly not unique in that regard.
 
lionking said:
I don't think it's too early to call Democrat vs Clown. Is it at all possible that the Republicans will put forward a credible, non Tea Party endorsed candidate? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I've said elsewhere that this election will be a Democratic landslide. The Republicans are so riven with bickering and infighting that they'll do Hillary's dirty work for her just trying to get the nomination, plus the first wave of Tea Party senators will be defending their seats and it's not looking good for several of them. The Republicans will likely lose the Senate and will have a significantly reduced majority in the House, if they retain control.
 
sunmaster14 said:
The US is certainly not unique in that regard.
Click to expand...

True. Sadly. So true that we are 9 days away of presidential elections and any of the candidates, including the Trotskyist one, is better than our current two-period viciously egomaniac president.

My own model tells me Clinton will beat Trump 56 to 44%. It's sad because I think Trump is the right choice -no pun planned-. Because if it's not Trump, who is gonna be? Jeb Bush? A greener chia pet?
 
aleCcowaN said:
True. Sadly. So true that we are 9 days away of presidential elections and any of the candidates, including the Trotskyist one, is better than our current two-period viciously egomaniac president.

My own model tells me Clinton will beat Trump 56 to 44%. It's sad because I think Trump is the right choice -no pun planned-. Because if it's not Trump, who is gonna be? Jeb Bush? A greener chia pet?
Click to expand...

Trump is a clown, almost by definition. I would think he was brilliant if I thought his strategy was pre-planned, but I don't. He might not be a bad President, but just about the only idea he has that makes any sense at all is the idea to build a wall on the Southern border (although not to try to deport 11 million people).

Trump is probably the favorite to be the nominee, but he is still well below 50% probability in my opinion. Marco Rubio probably has the best chance besides Trump. At the moment, he's my choice.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Trump is probably the favorite to be the nominee, but he is still well below 50% probability in my opinion. Marco Rubio probably has the best chance besides Trump. At the moment, he's my choice.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to imagine a presidential debate between Clinton and baby-face Blond, I mean, Rubio. It would look like any moment she'd be going to pull him over her lap and start to spank him. Let's face people don't vote for ideas but because of perceptions.
 
sunmaster14 said:
In general, though, of course the data is not terribly meaningful. There's no question that incumbent parties are at a disadvantage, despite the fact that incumbent Presidents are at an advantage. It's not going to make the difference between a good candidate and a bad candidate though.
Click to expand...

No question? I question it. Is that a seat of the pants judgment or something?


Hillary is not a good candidate, but the Democrats will be united behind her, and that's probably why she has the advantage in the betting. I think the bettors are overlooking her troubles with the email scandal, however. That's really serious stuff, and the Democrats could easily find themselves with a nominee under the cloud of an indictment.
Click to expand...

I think you're probably a over-hopeful about the potential email scandal. Not that I think the handicappers are the end-all and be-all, but at least their whole business depends on statistical analysis, and they're not vesting any emotion into it.
 
Brainster said:
Nixon was a clown, Reagan was a clown, Bush II was a clown.

You folks really have to get over the idea that everybody's got the same worldview as you. Otherwise half the time you will be amazed by what happens.
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders is closer to Nixon than any of the GOP crowd. Reagan would now be a RINO and, yeah, W was a bit of a clown. Aw, but an affable one, not the scary type, like Nixon.

Gawdzilla Sama said:
And let's not forget who ruled the US from 1933 to 1945.
Click to expand...

Hitler?
 
hgc said:
No question? I question it. Is that a seat of the pants judgment or something?
Click to expand...

It's a rhetorical flourish, not really an expression of 100% certainty. But yes, I think there is a sound logical and empirical basis for believing that an incumbent party is at a disadvantage. It's the political version of the credible aphorism "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."


I think you're probably a over-hopeful about the potential email scandal. Not that I think the handicappers are the end-all and be-all, but at least their whole business depends on statistical analysis, and they're not vesting any emotion into it.
Click to expand...

Well, I've always had a lot of respect for real markets where real people put real money on the line. The problem is that the political betting markets are dominated by British because it's illegal to bet on politics in the US. And the British have a very distorted view of American politics. If Hillary wasn't running for President, I think it would be a near-certainty that she would be indicted for mishandling of classified information. As it is now, I think it's probably about 25%, although ultimately it's up to Obama. She better hope that Joe doesn't run and start polling well.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's a rhetorical flourish, not really an expression of 100% certainty. But yes, I think there is a sound logical and empirical basis for believing that an incumbent party is at a disadvantage. It's the political version of the credible aphorism "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."




Well, I've always had a lot of respect for real markets where real people put real money on the line. The problem is that the political betting markets are dominated by British because it's illegal to bet on politics in the US. And the British have a very distorted view of American politics. If Hillary wasn't running for President, I think it would be a near-certainty that she would be indicted for mishandling of classified information. As it is now, I think it's probably about 25%, although ultimately it's up to Obama. She better hope that Joe doesn't run and start polling well.
Click to expand...

LOL. If Hillary wasn't running for President, nobody would give a crap about her emails.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's a rhetorical flourish, not really an expression of 100% certainty. But yes, I think there is a sound logical and empirical basis for believing that an incumbent party is at a disadvantage. It's the political version of the credible aphorism "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."
Click to expand...


Yeah, I get that. I just don't know what the sound logical or empirical basis is for believing it. The greener grass is indeed a nice aphorism, but I suspect its effect is swamped by other factors.


... If Hillary wasn't running for President, I think it would be a near-certainty that she would be indicted for mishandling of classified information. As it is now, I think it's probably about 25%, although ultimately it's up to Obama. She better hope that Joe doesn't run and start polling well.
Click to expand...


What Tony said. If you're pinning your hopes to this email thing, you had better be looking for another ox to gore.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Nixon was a clown, Reagan was a clown, Bush II was a clown.

You folks really have to get over the idea that everybody's got the same worldview as you. Otherwise half the time you will be amazed by what happens.
Click to expand...

Same applies to you.

If Trump somehow gets the nomination, it will be a cakewalk for Hillary.
 
Last edited:
deleted by user for being factually incorrect
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom