AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
What about a third term for Lincoln?!?!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 |OT4|: Your job is not to worry about 47% of these posts.
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
What about a third term for Lincoln?!?!
ryutaro's mama
Member
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I'm an Ike fan. Apparently so was my mom, too. She was telling me how she used to wear an "I like Ike" button to school back then.
They sure don't make Republicans like they used to
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
They sure don't make Republicans like they used to
They certainly don't. Not until I start my rise to political dominance next local election cycle, that is!
ErasureAcer
Banned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gahL5j4ackThey certainly don't. Not until I start my rise to political dominance next local election cycle, that is!
He was right. So right. Kind of scary
PhoenixDark
Banned
Of course he was going to get re-elected, with ease. Nixon passed on 1964 in part because everyone knew Kennedy would win
I've wondered that myself so many times. Humphrey came so close in the popular vote despite the disaster in Chicago that year, and after losing so much time trying to reunite the separate wings of the party. I think RFK would've had it since those two problems would've been diminished if he had continued winning the primaries and was perceived to have won the nomination fairly, more or less.
Holy fuck. :lol :lol :lol
Black Mamba
Member
LOL, the kid who asked Romney/Obama in the debate about getting a job out of college was offered a job by Mitt Romney.
But the kid said he decided he's voting for Obama.
ICE COLD.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hnzwfDmEhY&t=1m26s
edit: Just want to say I think RAND will level off or maybe tighten a bit when it's released. If it goes up for Obama, that's a really good sign.
But the kid said he decided he's voting for Obama.
ICE COLD.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hnzwfDmEhY&t=1m26s
edit: Just want to say I think RAND will level off or maybe tighten a bit when it's released. If it goes up for Obama, that's a really good sign.
eBay Huckster
Member
Joeys_Rattata
Neo Member
It's actually not all that uncommon.
Democratic-Republicans won 1800, 1804, 1808, 1812, 1816, 1820, and 1824.
Democrats then won 1828, 1832, and 1836.
Republicans won 1860, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, and 1880.
Republicans then went on again to win 1896, 1900, 1904, and 1908.
I'm not well versed on the 1912 election, but I think if Roosevelt hadn't run that year, Taft would have continued the Republican wins. I could be wrong though.
Republicans had another streak in 1920, 1924, and 1928.
Democrats then had a streak with 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, and 1948.
Republicans then had another streak in 1980, 1984, and 1988.
Truman to Reagan (a total of seven presidential elections) is the longest period of time where the parties have flipped back and forth. If 2008 was the start of a Democratic streak, then it will have been four elections between Bush Senior and Obama, which is about on par with history.
We've had 56 presidential elections in this country, and 31 of them have been part of streaks. If we exclude 2008 (because we don't know if that's going to be part of a Democratic string of wins or not), 56% of the elections in this country have been part of a string of wins, and that percentage might have been higher if it weren't for Roosevelt running in 1912.
Most of these streaks were caused by a president being popular and well liked, so the country voted for someone else in the same party when the popular president stepped down. The one exception is the Republican string of wins starting in 1860, which was caused by the electoral map not adding up for the Democrats, which I could actually see happening to the Republicans due to the hispanic population growth in the southwest. Of course, I doubt Democrats would win six in a row like the Republicans did.
To exemplify how the electoral map didn't work for the Democrats, Tilden and Cleveland actually won the popular vote in 1876 and 1888, but lost their elections because the electoral map didn't work in their favor. And Hancock was 2,000 vote shy of winning the popular vote in 1880, but those 2,000 votes wouldn't have mattered anyway since Garfield won 214 electoral votes to Hancock's 155. The only state that would have flipped the election results was New York, which Hancock wasn't close to winning anyway.
There have only been two times in history where a popular president has stepped down, and then their party lost the following election, and those were Nixon following Eisenhower in 1960, and Gore following Clinton in 2000. However, Gore won the popular vote and Nixon was about 0.1% away from winning the popular vote. If Obama wins this year and presides of the following recovery, the odds (historically) would favor the Democrats in 2016.
Sorry for the random history lesson from a random lurker. Kind of got carried away.
thanks for the information. i knew that tilden won the popular vote in 1876 since it ended with sellout/compromise of 1876/1877, but i didn't know that about cleveland. interesting stuff.
O'Donnell's reputation precedes him -- and I am a fan; but I don't know how I feel about such a criticism. You may have read it, but Hitchens once commented on the validity of using military service (or lack thereof) as a metric for gauging foreign policy. In short, he didn't like it. One should feel strongly about a war (so much so that one would send his children) but I don't think that means because one did not fight in a war, being "Hawkish" or calling for war is inappropriate at face-value. Is there is sound criticism here? Yes. Do I think the life-choices of 6 adult men were all coincidental? No. I do believe they avoided it. But I'd much rather focus on the absurdity and fear-mongering associated with Iran -- rather than Mitt himself. I'm not sure why I feel this way as I am usually a lot more vicious in my critiques than most pundits. Though if Mitt were president and did declare war (at this point who declares wars anymore) I would have every expectation for him to send some of his sons. Maybe that's no different and I am just spewing drivel.
I worried come election day. can some grimey shit actually happen? "TAGG ROMNEY INVESTED IN OHIO ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES" http://t.co/jVKfx6ix
Aaron Strife
Banned
TacticalFox88
Banned
So, why does everyone hate Lawrence again? :lol
iamshadowlark
Banned
Posted?
Mitt and Bams had dinner.
Gotta admit this was kind of funny
Mitt and Bams had dinner.
Gotta admit this was kind of funny
i think this sorta falls into conspiracy land. but if obama did lose ohio, he can also lose virginia, and win overall as long as he holds onto colorado, new hampshire, nevada, and iowa
Damn. Very funny. joke.exePosted?
Mitt and Bams had dinner.
Gotta admit this was kind of funny
Aaron Strife
Banned
By the way, if it's not too late to play Alternate History -
Paul Wellstone would have become president in 2004 if he didn't die in the plane crash. Something I've toyed with writing a timeline of before.
Paul Wellstone would have become president in 2004 if he didn't die in the plane crash. Something I've toyed with writing a timeline of before.
Ha it's fine, nice writeup. I really enjoyed reading it. I get what you're saying, historically. I think the days when one party can win a realigning election and prove dominant for 40 years is over though. Since the end of World War II, one party winning 3 times in a row has only happened once, in 1988. We've become polarized, a nation of 45/45 and the remaining slice goes to independents. McKinley's Progressive era or Roosevelt's New Deal Coalition for example convinced such a dominant majority of Americans to their side that only Theodore Roosevelt splitting the Republican vote or General Eisenhower's popularity could temporarily allow the other party to win. One party just can't command such a dominant realignment anymore.
Black Mamba
Member
RAND won't update. It is mocking me. I don't like being mocked.
StopMakingSense
Member
Where do they post?
Black Mamba
Member
https://mmicdata.rand.org/alp/index.php?page=election
Updates at 1am PST. Except apparently tonight. Because it is staring at my soul mocking it.
StopMakingSense
Member
Black Mamba
Member
It is not updating for me, wtf.
edit: finally.
Damn, looks like I was right.
48.84-45.66. That's a big jump back. Almost -3 for Obama.
I had a feeling the recent surge was also a byproduct of the old really good Romney data points being removed. So today there was a correction.
A 3 point race is now right in line with everything else except Gallup.
edit: finally.
Damn, looks like I was right.
48.84-45.66. That's a big jump back. Almost -3 for Obama.
I had a feeling the recent surge was also a byproduct of the old really good Romney data points being removed. So today there was a correction.
A 3 point race is now right in line with everything else except Gallup.
it moved up tremendously today, so maybe some great day for obama worked its way out or something. it's where it was on october 12, now.
if it stays where it is, then a 3 point spread seems more in line with what the other polls have been saying. +6 for obama was a definite outlier, like gallup's +7 for romney.
if it stays where it is, then a 3 point spread seems more in line with what the other polls have been saying. +6 for obama was a definite outlier, like gallup's +7 for romney.
Black Mamba
Member
It still isn't an outlier if you think the race is really +2 or 3 for Obama. +6 is normal.
I predicted it would come down today because I believed it was removing some of Obama's really good numbers that following the Romney surge. I was hoping for along the line of 1 point than 3 but it does make some sense.
It could have fairly polled 49-45 today and resulted in a lower margin that that since Obama had to have some really good numbers recently.
edit: Or better yet the previous 6 days were also removing Romney's great numbers and today had no such removal left in the system, so a regression to the mean occurred.
editx2: on the hilarious side, watch Gallup move 2 points to Obama in the LV model today. Though, I'd prefer it to show Romney +15.
StopMakingSense
Member
Whoa their methodology IS weird.
Black Mamba
Member
Clearly our problem is not enough austerity!
Fucking GOP morons.
Oh my God, that was fucking awesome. That was so personal, that was so serious and so perfect. I love this man.
this took much longer than i wanted it to.
checking out rand and comparing the days in the weeks things are compared.
i wondered if maybe some days there was a naturally strong romney group or a naturally strong obama group.
here's what it looks like for today's group, dating back ten weeks into august:
here's wednesday:
here's tuesday:
in fact, here's the three of them laid on top of each other:
and now, here's friday:
if there's movement in the poll, and it matches the others, i think it's safe to call this a trend. /unskew
edit: i chose a poor time to actually read their weighting and such. oh well, i didn't need that much sleep anyway.
checking out rand and comparing the days in the weeks things are compared.
i wondered if maybe some days there was a naturally strong romney group or a naturally strong obama group.
here's what it looks like for today's group, dating back ten weeks into august:
here's wednesday:
here's tuesday:
in fact, here's the three of them laid on top of each other:
and now, here's friday:
if there's movement in the poll, and it matches the others, i think it's safe to call this a trend. /unskew
edit: i chose a poor time to actually read their weighting and such. oh well, i didn't need that much sleep anyway.
applause.gif
This is the first time I've really understood how RAND works. Many thanks.
Now if I would just get my Intrade funded...
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-president-poll-uconn-courant-20121018,0,6416855.story
University of Connecticut/Hartford Courant poll
48-45 O
University of Connecticut/Hartford Courant poll
48-45 O
i thought it was the same 500 people every one of those days, so we'd be seeing the same friday group, the same thursday group, etc only. turns out the weighting has it so it includes a week of surveys. i done goofed.
you should be able to look at last friday and guess at least another percentage point gained, though. wednesday's +4 over the previous week looks like a crazy outlier, but i wouldn't be surprised to see it +1 over last week, which would put the total back at a 4-point spread.
Posted?
Mitt and Bams had dinner.
Gotta admit this was kind of funny
Huh, thought that was Karl Rove in the Bishop's vestment at first.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Gallup will probably be +10 R today just for the lolz
Black Republican
Member
hahaha, so so sad
wonder whos gonna be the first republican to admit hoping America gets attacked again just to Spite a 2nd Obama term.
They've already suffered two strikes when politicizing Libya. Do they not see a pattern?
If they continue to push this "optimal" thing, and god forbid Romney himself runs with it, then his draft dodging should be fair game. He would be effectively doubting Obama's patriotism and care for the lives of Americans by taking a quote so completely out of context. Highlighting his glorified vacationing in France while tens of thousands Americans were slaughtered would be a nice dose of his own medicine, only it would actually have validity.
Third time's the charm.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked