12 ms·

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:

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
  Which makes him an oddity, right?

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
Which makes him an oddity, right?