• 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 2016 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Macho Madness

Member
CfPJlimUsAANU6p.jpg:large


https://twitter.com/reidepstein/status/717138414991056897

Sad!
 
T

Touchdown

Banned
I live right outside ofNYC, a little north of. I cannot see Bernie Sanders coming in within 8-10 points of Clinton. It's just too diverse here and north of me is just too conservative, boding well for Hillary. Hillary's negatives are also probably the lowest in NY than most states in the country.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Cybit said:
This is more or less my belief - that said, I don't think even Obama would be able to win 4 elections in a row. We're reaaaaaaaally fickle, and it's only gotten kinda more swingy with the polarization. :D

If the GOP nominates someone sane (Paul Ryan would be my best bet, with Haley as a VP pick); then I think they'd be at 60/40 to win the election barring anything extremely unusual happening during the next four years (massive economic boom, for instance). I think the economic decline is here to stay, and I think the Democrats are going to be stuck with being blamed for that.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, parties seeking either a fourth consecutive presidential election victory or a fourth consecutive term (more on that distinction later) have a 4-3 record.

Successes

1) James Madison won a fourth term for the old Republicans (or "Democratic-Republicans") in 1812. They would go on to win seven straight, although the sixth was virtually uncontested and the seventh was fought among factions within the party. The party broke up in the aftermath, with the different factions eventually coalescing into the Democratic Party and the Whig Party.

2) William Howard Taft won a fourth term for the Republicans in 1908. This was also followed by a party split as Taft's own predecessor, Teddy Roosevelt, ran a third party challenge under the banner of the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party in 1912 after unsuccessfully challenging Taft for the Republican nomination. This resulted in Woodrow Wilson earning an Electoral College landslide for the Democrats with only 42% of the popular vote (Taft came in third in both the electoral and popular vote). The split proved short lived as most Progressives, including Roosevelt, returned to the Republican fold in 1916.

3) Franklin Roosevelt won a fourth consecutive term for both himself and the Democratic Party in 1944. Harry Truman would capture a fifth term for the Democrats in 1948 before the Republicans won back the White House behind Dwight Eisenhower in 1952.

4) Now here's where the distinction between four consecutive victories and four consecutive terms comes into play. The Republicans won six straight presidential elections beginning in 1860, but since Abraham Lincoln ran with Democrat Andrew Johnson in a unity ticket in 1864 and Johnson assumed the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, there was a Democratic administration in there. If your standard is four straight victories, then you count Ulysses S. Grant's victory in 1872. If your standard is four straight terms, then it's James Garfield's victory in 1880. Either way, you get one success.

Failures

1) Democrat Martin Van Buren (namesake of the infamous street gang) was defeated for re-election in 1840 by William Henry Harrison of the Whig Party.. Van Buren was blamed for the Panic of 1837 and subsequent depression by much of the electorate. Harrison is probably best known for having the shortest presidency in US history. Van Buren resurfaced as the nominee of the Free Soil Party in 1848, finishing a distant third.

2) Republican Herbert Hoover lost his bid for re-election to Franklin Roosevelt in a landslide in 1932 as voters blamed him for the Great Depression. There's really not much else to say about this one, although Hoover did rehabilitate his personal image, though not his presidency, somewhat during his long post presidency.

3) Republican George H.W. Bush was defeated in his 1992 bid for re-election by Bill Clinton. Popular myth attributes his defeat to the strong independent candidacy of Ross Perot, but exit polls actually suggest Perot drew equally from Bush and Clinton. A far more significant factor was the high unemployment that resulted from the early 1990s recession.

I don't think this really tells us much about 2020. For starters, seven is not very many data points. Also, most of these elections were fought under circumstances that clearly favored one party over the other. The opposition Federalist Party did OK in 1812, but they were in the middle of a slow death. Post Civil War the Democrats were at a disadvantage as Northern voters tended to blame them for the War. FDR was a popular wartime incumbent in 1944 and Democrats were still tying the Republicans to Hoover's unpopular presidency. But I must admit I was a bit surprised when I went through the results and found this.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Nebraska just went winner take all for its electoral votes. I guess I am OK with this, as long as maine does it as well once they get a governor up with some level of sanity.

EDIT: to be clear, their unicameral just passed the bill. Just needs to be signed, which it will.
 
M

Makai

Member
ivysaur12 said:
Nebraska just went winner take all four it's electoral votes. I guess I am OK with this, as long as main does it as well once they get a governor up with some level of sanity.

EDIT: to be clear, their unicameral just passed the bill. Just needs to be signed, which it will.
Click to expand...
Winner take all is more fun, anyway.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
ivysaur12 said:
Nebraska just went winner take all four it's electoral votes. I guess I am OK with this, as long as main does it as well once they get a governor up with some level of sanity.

EDIT: to be clear, their unicameral just passed the bill. Just needs to be signed, which it will.
Click to expand...
As Nebraska goes...
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
So, honest question, if you're a high ranking muckity muck in the GOP, what do you do?

Option A - Let Trump win the nomination, focus entirely on lower ballot races and get as many safe Republican's to deendorse Trump and hope things don't go nuclear for you?

Option B - Push Cruz over the line to 1237 at the convention despite the fact your chance for a victory might actually go down w/ Lyin' Ted? I mean, this is what makes it hard - this isn't a situation where Trump will have 1100 and Rubio will have 900.

Option C - Decide, "screw it, the Trumpites are going to hate us no matter what" and try to find a white knight?
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
if I'm a high-ranking member of the GOP I figure out how I can maximize the amount of money I'll make through November and then bail the fuck out
 
U

User 463088

Banned
JesseEwiak said:
So, honest question, if you're a high ranking muckity muck in the GOP, what do you do?

Option A - Let Trump win the nomination, focus entirely on lower ballot races and get as many safe Republican's to deendorse Trump and hope things don't go nuclear for you?

Option B - Push Cruz over the line to 1237 at the convention despite the fact your chance for a victory might actually go down w/ Lyin' Ted? I mean, this is what makes it hard - this isn't a situation where Trump will have 1100 and Rubio will have 900.

Option C - Decide, "screw it, the Trumpites are going to hate us no matter what" and try to find a white knight?
Click to expand...
You drink. A lot. And cry. Probably in that order.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
LizardKing said:
It really pisses me off that John Kasich can be on CNN right now saying that they are going to a brokered convention and with a smile on his face talk about how he plans to take away the candidate that the people voted for. I'm not a republican but every single American and citizen of democracy around the world should be outraged by that. And nobody calls him out on it we just take it as part of the system. I hate Trump but that is plain hijacking of democracy
Click to expand...

Honestly, my respect for Kasich has plummeted by his behavior. It really shows how cravenly power hungry he really is. Just openly saying "Yeah, I only won one state and have less delegates than Rubio, but the delegates are gonna choose me over the people who actually got votes golly gee" is unbelievably dismissive of the so called "will of the voters" which, by the by, the GOP has made a central plank of their party this year with their blockage of Garland.

Kasich is a complete loser with terrible posture and no eyebrows. I DON'T TRUST PEOPLE WITH NO EYEBROWS.
 
W

watershed

Banned
Hillary needs to win NY and Cali to put a nail in Bernie's campaign.
Edit: I mean win by enough margins to show that it's all over.
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
What's the deal with Sanders and Trump not filling seats in Wisconsin? I know it doesn't mean a damn thing despite people who should know better saying it does, but still seems unusual.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
i'm gonna be spending tomorrow doing a bunch of database bullshit and then doing a bunch of graphic design bullshit, coincidentally timed so that i don't have to pay any goddamn attention to the primary
 
M

maabus1999

Member
watershed said:
Hillary needs to win NY and Cali to put a nail in Bernie's campaign.
Edit: I mean win by enough margins to show that it's all over.
Click to expand...

This is the last week of possible good news for Bernie for a long time...Wisconsin and Wyoming.

After that you have a string of Clinton friendly states until May 3 which is another toss up (Indiana).

After that, the only primaries I see possibly winning, but not by larger margins is WV, MT, SD and KY. Everything else screams Clinton. He'll get a good win in ND but the delegate number is low.

Heck, DC and Puerto Rico are over 100 delegates, and we know she is going to do very, very well there.

He literally needs to win California by over 300 delegates and tie in NY / keep it close in the other Northeast states (within 5 points) to even have a small chance of catching up. Which is never going to happen.

And we all know the chance of that is.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
why even debate the numbers at this point. She is going to win and the question has been answered as to when. June 7th.

Bowdz said:
What's driving that guess for you?

It seems like Bernie has maintained a solid polling leading writ large with extremely favorable demographics and primary makeup.
Click to expand...

my gut.
 
P

Paskil

Member
Checking in to do my part for Hilldawg in Wisconsin tomorrow. I'm working the poll as a chief inspector from open to close, so we'll see how that goes. Should be much busier than the state supreme court primary in February.
 
A

aspiegamer

Member
There's a Supreme Court seat up tomorrow in Wisconsin which might end up turning out more establishment Democrats than have been estimated. Hard to poll both the race itself and its impacts within either party. Essentially it's a 2016 proxy of Walker vs Democrats. It's a thing that's never been mentioned in the leadup here, but it's a far more important election than either party's primary for the state itself.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
Paskil said:
Checking in to do my part for Hilldawg in Wisconsin tomorrow. I'm working the poll as a chief inspector from open to close, so we'll see how that goes. Should be much busier than the state supreme court primary in February.
Click to expand...

Inspect the shit out of those polls brah. Inspect them real good.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Anyone take a look at Bernie's interview with the NY Daily News Editorial Board? It's...odd.

Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite...

Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.
Click to expand...

So, his "I'ma break up the banks" is something he hasn't studied up on? I mean, isn't that like 90% of his shtick at this point? And he has no idea how he's actually going to do that?

He also manages to be completely incoherent on guns, and makes the case that the families of the children who were shot at the elementary school are using their lawsuit as a backdoor way to ban guns, or maybe just assault weapons.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom