Forget debate: Two simple reasons a Republican will likely win in 2016

Dog Town

Banned
D
Joined
Aug 3, 2006
Messages
6,862
Here's to hoping this is WRONG! PLEASE!
If for no other reason than, I love my insurance!
Elections are not mysterious events subject to the whimsy of unpredictable candidates and voters. They’re actually highly predictable, with a set of variables that influence outcomes in familiar ways.

Because of that, we can say, with reasonable confidence, that a Republican will be moving into the White House in 2017.

That conclusion is based on the results of a data model we created, and is primarily the result of two factors, both related to the challenges faced by “successor” candidates — candidates from the same party as the incumbent. First, a Republican will win because voters typically shy away from the party currently in power when an incumbent isn’t running. In fact, a successor candidate is three times less likely to win. Second, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings are too low to suggest a successor candidate will take the White House.
Click to expand...
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...is-likely-to-win-in-2016/?utm_source=Facebook
 
And yet, the bookies consider the Democratic Party the favorite. And Hillary is close to even money while the Republican candidates start at 7:1 and move on up from there.

I am not saying the Democrats will win. I am just saying it is still a horse race and overeliance on general trends ignores the fact that in the end it is a competition between two very specific people. With very specific baggage and very specific skills.
 
Last edited:
I would guess that all other things being equal, the GOP has a better chance than the Democrats to win in 2016. As the article notes, incumbents tend to win, successors from the same party tend to lose. There's also two-term fatigue. Look at recent elections where one party has held the presidency for two terms or more:

2008: Incumbent party lost
2000: Incumbent party lost
1992: Incumbent party lost
1988: Incumbent party won
1976: Incumbent party lost
1968: Incumbent party lost
1960: Incumbent party lost
1952: Incumbent party lost

That's 1-7, a pretty miserable record.

Before that you do have the fairly remarkable string of three consecutive elections won by an incumbent party which had been in office for two or more terms, but all of those were won by the sitting President, a situation which seems very unlikely to arise in 2016 (Biden would have to become President before the election and then win the Democratic nomination).

You can say that past performance is not always indicative of future results. And it is possible that 1-7 record is a fluke. There are certainly some extremely close elections in there: 1960, 1968 and 2000 were squeakers that could have gone the other way.

But yeah, if I'm betting on this election I would bet the GOP to win.
 
Last edited:
I am not a political analyst, so I will not feel slighted if more knowledgeable posters correct me, but moving forward, theHouse Speaker election nuttiness could be a variable in the presidential election.

Also, a year is an eternity in a presidential election run up. All sorts of stuff can happen.
 
More wishful thinking. Clinton will be up against a clown of some sort, beholden to the Tea Party. She will win, regardless of the incumbency factor.
 
Ladewig said:
I am not a political analyst, so I will not feel slighted if more knowledgeable posters correct me, but moving forward, theHouse Speaker election nuttiness could be a variable in the presidential election.

Also, a year is an eternity in a presidential election run up. All sorts of stuff can happen.
Click to expand...

And a year after the House Speaker election nuttiness?
 
lionking said:
More wishful thinking. Clinton will be up against a clown of some sort, beholden to the Tea Party. She will win, regardless of the incumbency factor.
Click to expand...

Nixon was a clown, Reagan was a clown, Bush II was a clown.

You folks really have to get over the idea that everybody's got the same worldview as you. Otherwise half the time you will be amazed by what happens.
 
Brainster said:
Nixon was a clown, Reagan was a clown, Bush II was a clown.

You folks really have to get over the idea that everybody's got the same worldview as you. Otherwise half the time you will be amazed by what happens.
Click to expand...

Well, the bar keeps moving. Dubya's set a new standard. Nixon and Reagan were apprentices compared to GWB. But GWB will probably happily retire the crown if Trump gets nominated... or any of the top 3 (Trump, Carson or Fiorina). They all make GWB seem like the voice of sanity and coherency.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Well, the bar keeps moving. Dubya's set a new standard. Nixon and Reagan were apprentices compared to GWB. But GWB will probably happily retire the crown if Trump gets nominated... or any of the top 3 (Trump, Carson or Fiorina). They all make GWB seem like the voice of sanity and coherency.
Click to expand...

And that's my point. GWB was your garden variety, low grade clown, at home in a travelling circus. Trump et al are world class clowns worthy of a nation-wide comedy half hour.

As much as I admire and respect the US and its citizens, part of me wants to see it ruled by a complete loon.
 
Dog Town said:
Here's to hoping this is WRONG! PLEASE!
If for no other reason than, I love my insurance!

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...is-likely-to-win-in-2016/?utm_source=Facebook
Click to expand...

I would highly recommend you ditch whomever created that "model" and trust Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.

He's successfully predicted the last three or four Presidential elections and many elections in Congress as well. His mathematical model is nearly 95% accurate, I'd estimate. He's not just doing straight election predictions now, as he has his own site that does news and sports in addition to the predictions for elections, but he still follows the elections fairly closely and offers evidence-based commentary on all the candidates and their likelihood of making it to the White House. If it makes you feel any better, right now he's predicting Hillary, I think.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
We don't even know who will be on the ballot in November 2016 and they're already calling the results? Maroons.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's too early to call Democrat vs Clown. Is it at all possible that the Republicans will put forward a credible, non Tea Party endorsed candidate? I don't think so.
 
The problem with this kind of analysis is that the statistical sample is tiny. There's only one presidential election every four years, and the factors that influence the outcome are enormously complex. I wouldn't trust the pattern shown in the OP to have any predictive value at all.

Incidentally, the 2 term incumbent party won the popular vote in 2000, so you can chuck that one into the other column.
 
hgc said:
The problem with this kind of analysis is that the statistical sample is tiny. There's only one presidential election every four years, and the factors that influence the outcome are enormously complex. I wouldn't trust the pattern shown in the OP to have any predictive value at all.

Incidentally, the 2 term incumbent party won the popular vote in 2000, so you can chuck that one into the other column.
Click to expand...

Well, aside from the fact that the winner is determined by the electoral college and not by the popular vote, Bush was the clear favorite going into the weekend before the election. Polls had him up by 3% or more. Then the story of Bush's 25 year old DUI broke. I actually saw the effect with my own eyes, as the firm I worked for back then had retained Zogby to do polling for us. His poll the week before showed Bush winning comfortably, and then the poll he did for us the night before the election had it dead even. It was a very impressive result. Zogby has had a bad track record since, but he absolutely nailed the 2000 election for us. He said it would be a photo finish, and it was. Of course, the information didn't help us any (and it cost $50,000).

In general, though, of course the data is not terribly meaningful. There's no question that incumbent parties are at a disadvantage, despite the fact that incumbent Presidents are at an advantage. It's not going to make the difference between a good candidate and a bad candidate though. Hillary is not a good candidate, but the Democrats will be united behind her, and that's probably why she has the advantage in the betting. I think the bettors are overlooking her troubles with the email scandal, however. That's really serious stuff, and the Democrats could easily find themselves with a nominee under the cloud of an indictment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom