https://www.dailykos.com/user/thearistos/rss/index.xml News Community Action Copyright 2005 - Steal what you want Mon, 27 Jan 2020 16:46:31 +0000 Mon, 27 Jan 2020 16:46:31 +0000 Daily Kos rss@dailykos.com (Daily Kos) Daily Kos rss@dailykos.com (Daily Kos) https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/6/26/1396744/-What-are-the-chances-Hillary-could-win-in-2016-History-is-not-on-her-side <p>Much of the commentary about the early stages of the 2016 race has been about whether any of the Republican candidates can defeat Hillary Clinton, with the discussion being informed by poll numbers, name recognition, the state of the economy, importance of various mini-scandals etc.</p> <p>However, Hillary is not running an isolated race, she is running to gain a third term for the Democratic party in the White House. How does this factor affect her chances?</p> <p>Since the beginning of presidential politics there have been 21 periods of a party holding the White House. At the short end we have the various one-term-win holds (Carter 1976, Cleveland 1892 &amp; 1884 , Benjamin Harrison 1888, Taylor/Fillmore 1848, Polk 1844, Harrison/Tyler 1840, John Adams 1796) - I am including all instances where a party came into power and only held the White House for one term (even if that includes two presidents) and ignoring one term presidents who came after or before presidential terms held by their same party.</p> <p>Next we have the “two and done” list: G W Bush 2000, Clinton 1992, Nixon/Ford 1968, Kennedy/Johnson 1960, Eisenhower 1952, Wilson 1912, Pierce/Buchanan 1852, and George Washington 1789. Here a party took control for only two terms, either with the same president or more than one, but then ceded the White House after eight years.</p> <p>Finally, there are the longer stretches where a party held on for more than two terms: Reagan/Bush 1980 (3 terms), Roosevelt/Truman 1932-1952 (5 terms), Harding to Hoover 1920 (3 terms), McKinley to Taft 1896 (4 terms), Lincoln to Arthur 1860 (6 terms, although interrupted by Andrew Johnson taking over after Lincoln’s assassination for a partial term), Jackson/Van Buren 1836 (3 terms), and Jefferson to Adams 1800 (7 terms).</p> <p>We can largely ignore the one term ‘holds’, as we know we are already dealing with the election after a two term Obama. However, it’s worth noting that one term holds used to be much more common than they have been in the past 100 years, with Carter being the only one in the last 120 years- I’ll return to that in a moment.</p> <p>Looking at the two term or longer holds, another pattern that emerges is that a party holding the White House for more than two terms used to be fairly common. In the 152 years after 1800 (38 terms), 112 years (28 terms or 74%) of that time has been under longer stretches three or more terms of one party control of the White House. &nbsp;By contrast, in the 56 years between 1952 and 2008 (14 terms), only 12 years (3 terms or 21%) have been under such a longer stretch.</p> <p>The one outlier in the previous 60 years or so has been the Carter loss to Reagan in 1980 which produced an unusual one-term hold for the Democrats, and set up an unusual three term hold for the Republicans. Other than that one instance, the White House has swung back and forth every two terms between the two parties. You could say that Reagan won ‘too early’ disrupting the pattern. If Reagan’s first term had been held by Carter, the pattern of two term holds would have been unbroken since 1952. &nbsp;One could argue that that disruption in the pattern was down to an unusually strong candidate in Reagan (and a weak incumbent in Carter).</p> <p>Reagan was doubly ‘disruptive’ of the pattern, limiting a Democratic hold to one term and bequeathing a legacy of a third term to G H W Bush. However, he got ‘lucky’ in that Carter ended his first term with horrible 35% approval ratings making him clearly vulnerable, and Reagan left office with a quite high 65% approval, setting up a relatively ‘easy’ third Republican term. &nbsp;</p> <p>However, the approval ratings of previous presidents are in no way definitive. Eisenhower ceded the White House with a 60% approval rating, Clinton ceded it with 65% approval, and Johnson and Ford ceded their two term party holds with decent 50% ratings, all higher than Obama’s current 45% approval rating. (One could argue that Clinton’s high approval numbers did lead to a ‘win’ for Gore in the popular vote, but it’s not worth fighting old battles!)</p> <p>So all this brings us back to Hillary Clinton. Is she strong enough to disrupt the two term pattern? Her situation does not look good. If Obama were more popular, or if the Republican field did not have such strong candidates, then maybe her chances would be higher. Obama is likely to end his term with a relatively average approval rating, unless there is a dramatic shift in the numbers. He’ll probably end his eight years less popular than Clinton or Reagan, perhaps more popular than the Bushes (although Bush senior actually finished quite strong), and in the same ballpark as Eisenhower, Johnson, and Ford.</p> <p>So if Obama is not going to gift Hillary a third term with sky-high approval ratings, how about the strength of the 2016 candidates themselves, could they disrupt the pattern? I have to try to put my partisan hat away here and simply look at the candidates’ strengths.</p> <p>Clinton has great name recognition, pretty good approval ratings, is well supported by the party establishment, and she has built an impressive CV since she and Bill left the White House. Her personal story is mixed, though- her aim to be the first woman president is probably a strength, but there is baggage weighing her down like the fact that this would be yet another dynasty, the seemingly constant mini-scandals in the press, &nbsp;and the possibility there might be some apathy because of the expected nomination ‘coronation’. She is also not the most inspiring of campaigners, which matters more than it should.</p> <p>On the Republican side, there are several candidates who are either establishment heavyweights, such as Bush (the third?!?), inspiring upstarts, such as Marco Rubio, or governors with track records such as Walker, Kasich, Perry, etc. Apart from a few die-hard ultra conservatives and insubstantial celebrity candidates, several of these Republicans are definitely electable. &nbsp;Clinton will face an average Republican candidate, not a historically weak one, if she is lucky. In such case the historic odds would be against her. If she is unlucky, one of the GOP candidates could become the kind of unique, inspiring figure Obama was for the Democratic party in 2008, who would be practically unbeatable.</p> <p>Obviously the two term pattern can be broken and nothing is set in stone, but if Hillary won a third term, it would be a especially notable considering she is attempting to follow two terms of Obama. Best of luck to her, but I am not particularly hopeful.<br /></p> rss@dailykos.com (thearistos) 2016 Barack Obama BarackObama Bush Elections Hillary Clinton HillaryClinton President _1396744 Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:19:34 +0000 https://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/7/25/998423/-Act-as-if-the-gun-isn-t-loaded <p>I find myself being envious of the brute force of the political will displayed by the right. &nbsp;I'm naturally drawn to compromise, finding common ground, reaching consensus, but I'm constantly disappointed by the unwillingness of the other side to meet halfway. Inevitably the final agreement is tilted towards the party that was willing to walk away from the deal. In the current debt ceiling debate, the hostage taker has infinitely more power than opposition forces urging rational discussion. The Republicans are holding a gun to the head of the world's only superpower, safe in the knowledge that their opponents would never risk calling their bluff. Obama only has soft power, essentially making the argument that the Republicans won't win a popularity contest if they don't behave. That's like telling a terrorist he won't have a good credit rating if he shoots the hostage- after the fact, nobody cares. I wish, with all my heart, that Obama had made it clear that he would refuse to sign anything but a clean debt ceiling rise, and that if he didn't have such a bill to sign he would use the 14th amendment to save the economy. He needs to be able to walk away from the negotiating table, safe in the knowledge that the gun at the hostage's head is unloaded. My fear is that by doing the right thing for the country and accepting ANY kind of deal, we let the terrorists win. And once successful, this kind of behaviour will simply be repeated.</p> rss@dailykos.com (thearistos) Barack Obama BarackObama Debt Ceiling DebtCeiling Medicare Republicans Taxes _998423 Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:49:21 +0000 https://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/1/648726/-What-is-the-cure-for-apathy <p>I am an American citizen living in London. I am an Obama supporter, and I've given the campaign money. <strong>But I will not be voting.</strong></p> <p>Let me explain- I last lived in the US in Massachusetts, and under current rules, I can't register to vote from abroad in any other state apart from MA. &nbsp;I tried looking into registering in New Hampshire, where my mother currently lives, but couldn't see a way of doing it legally. Because I know MA is completely safe for Obama, I kind of lost the will to register.</p> <p>I'm not proud of my apathy, I'm quite embarrassed by it. &nbsp;But I'm also fascinated by it.</p> rss@dailykos.com (thearistos) BarackObamaMcCainvotingregesteringcompulsorysystemapathy _648726 Sat, 01 Nov 2008 10:16:23 +0000 https://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/31/647693/-Obama-will-not-bring-real-change <p>Barack Obama will be elected on November 4th. That is less remarkable than winning the primary- any competently run Democratic campaign should have been able to beat McCain this year. John Kerry could have won this year, easily. &nbsp;In fact, the only reason the American voter took a chance on Obama is because of their overwhelming confidence in a Democratic victory.</p> <p>However, that doesn't negate his achievement in winning the primary. &nbsp;He was running against vastly more qualified candidates, safer candidates in Dodd, Biden, and Edwards; and Hilary had a killer last name which was expected to guarantee her the nomination. While innumerable people have talked about the incredible organisation which the Obama campaign built as the source of his success in Iowa and subsequent wins, a huge part of his appeal must have been the whole-hearted rejection of traditional politicians on the part of voters. &nbsp;</p> <p>However, as president he will disappoint this anti-establishment vote.</p> rss@dailykos.com (thearistos) Barack Obama BarackObama Deficit HealthCare Insurance Iraq Taxes TonyBlair _647693 Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:38:49 +0000