• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dems are fighting history if Hillary wins Pres

JEDI

JEDI

Lifer
" 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. 😡
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
JEDI said:
" 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. 😡
Click to expand...

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.
 
woolfe9998 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I don't put much stock in those kinds of statistics because the sample is too small and the starting point is arbitrary.
Click to expand...

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


Fern
 
eskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

As usual, you make sense. It does tend, however, to make the more irrational edgy.
 
Sonikku said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, yeh, but they deserve to be screwed. Everybody knows it's true, even them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top