Dems are fighting history if Hillary wins Pres

[JEDI]

" The same party has won the presidency in three consecutive elections only once since World War II."

that was Regan + Bush Sr.

If bush jr can over come the Zero Year Curse, then Hillary will be Pres in 2016.


Sidenote:
too bad Bush Sr only served 1 term.
I liked him for thinking of America first.
he went back on his 'read my lips, no new taxes' promise in order to balance the budget.

unfortunately, the voters punished him for it by not electing him for a 2nd term.
the repubs saw this and have changed their tune by completely screwing the country over.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't put much stock in those kinds of statistics because the sample is too small and the starting point is arbitrary.

We've had 17 presidential elections since WWII. Imagine if they were being elected by chance - a coin toss. What are the odds on 17 flips you wouldn't see either heads or tails repeat 3 consecutive times more than once? I can't do the actual math but I don't think the probability is all that low. It happening only one time is probably consistent with random chance. Obviously the actual elections aren't done by chance, but the sample is too small to conclude that this is a trend in voting behavior that has an actual reason to it.

Another problem is the arbitrary starting point of "after WWII." It's a convenient starting point, since immediately prior we had 4 terms of democrats, and immediately before that, 3 terms of republicans. If you started at Harding instead of Eisenhower, we'd have a sample of 24 elections, showing 2 occurrences of 3 consecutive terms for 1 party, and 1 occurrence of 4 consecutive terms. All the sudden it looks a lot more common. On the other hand, you could start at Reagan, in which case it's only 1 occurrence but that's out of only 9 elections. After WWII is the absolute best starting point to make it look uncommon.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Problem with Bush Senior was people told him he'd have to raise taxes but he stubbornly said "No new taxes". The other big problem was the economy hit a rough period with higher job loss and he refused to even acknowledge there was a slow down. I do feel he is similar to Carter a much better President in hindsight. He also made a brave & noble decision about ending Iraq war #1 without demanding Sadam step down.

 

[Sonikku]

" The same party has won the presidency in three consecutive elections only once since World War II."

that was Regan + Bush Sr.

If bush jr can over come the Zero Year Curse, then Hillary will be Pres in 2016.


Sidenote:
too bad Bush Sr only served 1 term.
I liked him for thinking of America first.
he went back on his 'read my lips, no new taxes' promise in order to balance the budget.

unfortunately, the voters punished him for it by not electing him for a 2nd term.
the repubs saw this and have changed their tune by completely screwing the country over.

Voters didn't punish him for taxes. Dems were the ones who pushed for that.

The reason why he lost was because Perot split the vote just enough to give Bill the win. It is the reason why the GoP is in a panic over Trump running as an independent. Screwed either way.

 

[SP33Demon]

More like Democrats are fighting their consciences this election.

 

[Sonikku]

Pretty sure just about everybody is fighting their conscience this election.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Pretty sure just about everybody is fighting their conscience this election.

^ This.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't put much stock in those kinds of statistics because the sample is too small and the starting point is arbitrary.

We've had 17 presidential elections since WWII. Imagine if they were being elected by chance - a coin toss. What are the odds on 17 flips you wouldn't see either heads or tails repeat 3 consecutive times more than once? I can't do the actual math but I don't think the probability is all that low. It happening only one time is probably consistent with random chance. Obviously the actual elections aren't done by chance, but the sample is too small to conclude that this is a trend in voting behavior that has an actual reason to it.

Another problem is the arbitrary starting point of "after WWII." It's a convenient starting point, since immediately prior we had 4 terms of democrats, and immediately before that, 3 terms of republicans. If you started at Harding instead of Eisenhower, we'd have a sample of 24 elections, showing 2 occurrences of 3 consecutive terms for 1 party, and 1 occurrence of 4 consecutive terms. All the sudden it looks a lot more common. On the other hand, you could start at Reagan, in which case it's only 1 occurrence but that's out of only 9 elections. After WWII is the absolute best starting point to make it look uncommon.

Not only that but if you're actually looking at the probability you should look at the occurrences of a party winning a third term AFTER having already won two, as that's the situation now. If you look at that it's no different than a coin flip and totally insignificant.

People who write these sort of stories either don't know what they are talking about or are very misleading.

 

[senseamp]

Sample to small to draw any conclusions. All bets are off this year.

 

[brycejones]

Posting in a Jedi thread.

 

[Fern]

I don't put much stock in those kinds of statistics because the sample is too small and the starting point is arbitrary.

I think it's good starting point because prior to WWII we didn't have the 22nd amendment limiting presidential terms to 2.


Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Not only that but if you're actually looking at the probability you should look at the occurrences of a party winning a third term AFTER having already won two, as that's the situation now. If you look at that it's no different than a coin flip and totally insignificant.

People who write these sort of stories either don't know what they are talking about or are very misleading.

As usual, you make sense. It does tend, however, to make the more irrational edgy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Voters didn't punish him for taxes. Dems were the ones who pushed for that.

The reason why he lost was because Perot split the vote just enough to give Bill the win. It is the reason why the GoP is in a panic over Trump running as an independent. Screwed either way.

Well, yeh, but they deserve to be screwed. Everybody knows it's true, even them.