7 ms·

Funny how much people over think a lot of this stuff. Most of it fails the test of Occam's razor. Which is that it's almost impossible to elect a same-party ca

Funny how much people over think a lot of this stuff. Most of it fails the test of Occam's razor. Which is that it's almost impossible to elect a same-party candidate after an 8 year presidential term.

lend000 10y ago
> Which is that it's almost impossible to elect a same-party candidate after an 8 year presidential term. Evidence? That's a bold claim, and not true at all if you look at the length of time political parties have continuously held the White house. There's plenty of examples to the contrary, and nothing statistically significant about the number of 8 year terms followed by a different party that would indicate "impossibility": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_over_time#Full_Congress_and_White_House_Control_by_Party_Past_100_Years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_... However, a plausible explanation for why there is a bit lower chance (roughly 1/3) of re-electing your party after 8 years is that roughly 2/3rds of our two term presidents have failed to deliver on promises (or failed in other ways) to the American people, and Obama happens to fit that explanation very well.
- Aloha 10y ago
  I think the only fair comparison however is from Theodore Roosevelt on (the modern era).. in which that kind of change over is very very rare.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  It's not that controversial. Since the 1920s we've had one president (HW Bush) who fits the bill under normal circumstances. The following were all oddities: * Nixon -> Ford * JFK -> Johnson * FDR -> Truman It doesn't have to be statistically significant to be a pattern. In fact, one of the few presidents to have a proper "successor" was Roosevelt with Taft and that didn't turn out so well...
  - Aloha 10y ago
    I don't understand why this is being downvoted - its all true. Reagan to GW Bush was the anomaly really. Even with Obamas popularity its not surprising there was a party changeover - unfortunately the candidate from the other side was trump.
    - nickgrosvenor 10y ago
      And even that is an anomaly, because people forget that Reagan was shot during his first term which upped his favorability out of sympathy. Much like GWB's approval rating after 9/11. He had the largest landslide victory of any two term president. He basically won every state. And that goodwill carried over to George HW Bush's campaign.
  - lend000 10y ago
    > It's not that controversial. It's certainly controversial if used as a defense for why a party 'couldn't win,' which is how I read the original comment. It's not like there is some magical system that conspired to elect the opposite party for Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, etc. but didn't act for Reagan, Coolidge, etc. The fact of the matter is that poor presidencies (or presidencies that the public did not correctly identify as poor) played a large part in re-election of the party, perhaps more so than the running candidates. And on average, we have had a lot of presidents who leave much to be desired, so it flip flops as a result. If it's not being used as a defense, then it's just an incorrect point, because as you said, there is nothing statistically significant either way, which is basically what the original comment asserts by declaring it impossible.
  - molecule 10y ago
    > Since the 1920s we've had one president (HW Bush) who fits the bill under normal circumstances. > The following were all oddities: > Nixon -> Ford > ... Ford wasn't even elected to the presidency, NOR the vice presidency-- he was appointed VP after Agnew resigned. And then lost to Carter in '76.
    - btilly 10y ago

lend000 10y ago

> Which is that it's almost impossible to elect a same-party candidate after an 8 year presidential term. Evidence? That's a bold claim, and not true at all if you look at the length of time political parties have continuously held the White house. There's plenty of examples to the contrary, and nothing statistically significant about the number of 8 year terms followed by a different party that would indicate "impossibility": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_over_time#Full_Congress_and_White_House_Control_by_Party_Past_100_Years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_... However, a plausible explanation for why there is a bit lower chance (roughly 1/3) of re-electing your party after 8 years is that roughly 2/3rds of our two term presidents have failed to deliver on promises (or failed in other ways) to the American people, and Obama happens to fit that explanation very well.

Aloha 10y ago
I think the only fair comparison however is from Theodore Roosevelt on (the modern era).. in which that kind of change over is very very rare.
aaron-lebo 10y ago
It's not that controversial. Since the 1920s we've had one president (HW Bush) who fits the bill under normal circumstances. The following were all oddities: * Nixon -> Ford * JFK -> Johnson * FDR -> Truman It doesn't have to be statistically significant to be a pattern. In fact, one of the few presidents to have a proper "successor" was Roosevelt with Taft and that didn't turn out so well...
- Aloha 10y ago
  I don't understand why this is being downvoted - its all true. Reagan to GW Bush was the anomaly really. Even with Obamas popularity its not surprising there was a party changeover - unfortunately the candidate from the other side was trump.
  - nickgrosvenor 10y ago
    And even that is an anomaly, because people forget that Reagan was shot during his first term which upped his favorability out of sympathy. Much like GWB's approval rating after 9/11. He had the largest landslide victory of any two term president. He basically won every state. And that goodwill carried over to George HW Bush's campaign.
- lend000 10y ago
  > It's not that controversial. It's certainly controversial if used as a defense for why a party 'couldn't win,' which is how I read the original comment. It's not like there is some magical system that conspired to elect the opposite party for Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, etc. but didn't act for Reagan, Coolidge, etc. The fact of the matter is that poor presidencies (or presidencies that the public did not correctly identify as poor) played a large part in re-election of the party, perhaps more so than the running candidates. And on average, we have had a lot of presidents who leave much to be desired, so it flip flops as a result. If it's not being used as a defense, then it's just an incorrect point, because as you said, there is nothing statistically significant either way, which is basically what the original comment asserts by declaring it impossible.
- molecule 10y ago
  > Since the 1920s we've had one president (HW Bush) who fits the bill under normal circumstances. > The following were all oddities: > Nixon -> Ford > ... Ford wasn't even elected to the presidency, NOR the vice presidency-- he was appointed VP after Agnew resigned. And then lost to Carter in '76.
  - btilly 10y ago