You can't include Johnson, but exclude Ford! You either need to eliminate both or include both.
Why not? The Republicans held the Presidency 53-61 - so the 61 to 65 term was the first term and LBJ's re-election in 1964 was the first election after the Democrats regained the office.
The Democrats first term from 1961 ended after LBJ's victory - it didn't end upon JFK's death.
Ford succeeded Nixon but Nixon had already won re-election in 1972 so it was a second term not a first term.
OK, that makes sense.
Thanks so on that basis do you agree with my 90% re-election for first term Presidents hypothesis?
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,
No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners. Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s
I wonder what damage all the Ukraine stuff has done to him, even if it is all heresay, it did shine a spotlight on the fact his son has earned a lot of money out of his name, kinda of like that Trump family, which can't go down well with Democrats.
He's just a very bad campaigner. I've been following the race very closely.
OGH was right. He's too old. I have argued against this view many times several months ago. I was wrong. Biden needs to drop out.
I doubt Biden will win but he might do better than expected, though beware as below young people vote later than old people so may not yet be all showing up
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,
No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners. Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s
I don't think it will happen either. But I remember that Hillary bounced back very strongly in 2008 in New Hampshire, confounding the polls to beat Obama.
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
Yet:
1952, 1956 Rep 1960, 1964 Dem 1968, 1972 Rep 1976 Dem 1980, 1984, 1988 Rep 1992, 1996 Dem 2000, 2004 Rep 2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":
Obama - 2 W Bush - 2 Clinton - 2 Bush - 1 Reagan - 2 Carter - 1 Ford - 1 Nixon - 1 and a bit LBJ - 1 and a bit JFK - half Eisenhower - 2
But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.
Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural continuation of the Reagan presidency.
I think its probably significant that the the only 3 term party presidency followed immediately after the only 1 term presidency with the 'natural' order then coming back.
Of course Trump is someone who disrupts all 'natural' orders.
I suspect if we had a standard Republican currently as President he would be very likely to be re-elected.
After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.
Yes, I'd agree with all of that.
I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.
Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.
After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.
Check out all the other outcomes for Democrats on the map between 1968 and 1988. Not just losses, but body blows, and repeatedly. Once the counterculture arrived, only the end of the Cold War, and the arrival of Ross Perot, saved the game for Democrats. The exceptional two are Carter and Obama.
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,
No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners. Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s
Dear god, we're not going to come out of state 2 with Bloomberg, Kloch, Buttigeg, Sanders, Warren & Biden still running are we.
Biden surely isn't leaving before SC.
Bloomberg certainly as he hasn't even bothered with first three or four states.
Yeah, I'm just wondering how many ways Super Tuesday can split. Split 1/3rd of the delegates 6 ways and the odds of a contested convention increase a lot.
You can't include Johnson, but exclude Ford! You either need to eliminate both or include both.
Why not? The Republicans held the Presidency 53-61 - so the 61 to 65 term was the first term and LBJ's re-election in 1964 was the first election after the Democrats regained the office.
The Democrats first term from 1961 ended after LBJ's victory - it didn't end upon JFK's death.
Ford succeeded Nixon but Nixon had already won re-election in 1972 so it was a second term not a first term.
OK, that makes sense.
Thanks so on that basis do you agree with my 90% re-election for first term Presidents hypothesis?
Yes.
They have been re-elected roughly 90% of the time.
But I would add a caveat. I think we may all be a little fooled by randomness, seeing patterns where they don't exist. But I agree with your original premise: 90% of Presidents are re-elected.
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?
I mean the place is a shit hole.
returning 3 Tory MPs.
I am still shocked that happened (I know the Tories had been closing the gap over a number of elections, but still).
If you had told me growing up that the Tories would win Stoke, we would be calling for the men in white coats. They used to weigh the Labour vote.
YOU'RE shocked. Imagine living near Bolsover......
Although Bolsover had been demographically and politically trending away from Labour for over a decade.
The real shockers were Burnley and Redcar with the Conservatives going from fourth in 2015 to first in 2019.
Interestingly, Burnley and Redcar have had exactly the same electoral history since, I think, WW2.
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
Yet:
1952, 1956 Rep 1960, 1964 Dem 1968, 1972 Rep 1976 Dem 1980, 1984, 1988 Rep 1992, 1996 Dem 2000, 2004 Rep 2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.
Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural continuation of the Reagan presidency.
I think its probably significant that the the only 3 term party presidency followed immediately after the only 1 term presidency with the 'natural' order then coming back.
Of course Trump is someone who disrupts all 'natural' orders.
I suspect if we had a standard Republican currently as President he would be very likely to be re-elected.
After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.
Yes, I'd agree with all of that.
I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.
Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.
After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.
Check out all the other outcomes for Democrats on the map between 1968 and 1988. Not just losses, but body blows, and repeatedly. Once the counterculture arrived, only the end of the Cold War, and the arrival of Ross Perot, saved the game for Democrats. The exceptional two are Carter and Obama.
Why did the counterculture bring about the end of the Democrats? Is your argument that the association of the counterculture with the Democrats - whether the party wanted it or not - alientaed mainstream America?
I think I heard this right, NBC exit poll talking about a lot more older voters compared to 2016. I thought Bernie was supposed to be getting all the kids out?
Also, far less "very liberal" voters and way more independents have turned out.
Depends on the state, but "Independent" often means to the left of the Democratic party mainstream, especially if it's people turning out for a Democratic primary.
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
Yet:
1952, 1956 Rep 1960, 1964 Dem 1968, 1972 Rep 1976 Dem 1980, 1984, 1988 Rep 1992, 1996 Dem 2000, 2004 Rep 2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":
Obama - 2 W Bush - 2 Clinton - 2 Bush - 1 Reagan - 2 Carter - 1 Ford - 1 Nixon - 1 and a bit LBJ - 1 and a bit JFK - half Eisenhower - 2
But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.
Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural tion.
Yes, I'd agree with all of that.
I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.
Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.
After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.
Check out all the other outcomes for Democrats on the map between 1968 and 1988. Not just losses, but body blows, and repeatedly. Once the counterculture arrived, only the end of the Cold War, and the arrival of Ross Perot, saved the game for Democrats. The exceptional two are Carter and Obama.
Polling has shown Bill Clinton would have won without Perot anyway as his voters were split between Bush and Clinton
"As of late Tuesday afternoon, a total of 853 presidential campaign events have been held in New Hampshire, nearly 300 fewer than the amount held in Iowa before the caucuses last week. That said, for the most part, the number of events each candidate held the Granite State doesn’t correspond with their standing in the state’s polls.
The most events were held by businessman Andrew Yang (133) and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (130), but they have gained little traction in the polls."
Warren really must finish atleast second today, I feel.
She'll prolong for as long as possible. What's the odds of an 80 year old with one heart attack under his belt having a second during such a massively stressful time? She'll want to be in a strong position for the 1-5% chance that a new candidate needs to be found.
Bernie 30% Pete 24% Warren 15 Klobuchar 15 Biden 10
Sounds plausible.
Of course, it's possible for Buttigieg to win the delegate math on those vote shares, because he'll do better in the First Congressional District (where fewer votes will be cast and there'll be fewer viable candidates) than in the Second.
Warren really must finish atleast second today, I feel.
She'll prolong for as long as possible. What's the odds of an 80 year old with one heart attack under his belt having a second during such a massively stressful time? She'll want to be in a strong position for the 1-5% chance that a new candidate needs to be found.
Also in a contested convention scenario she's much more acceptable to moderates than Bernie, and more acceptable to most (not all) of the Bernie delegates than Biden, Buttigieg or Baemy. She could walk in there with 5% of delegates and walk out the nominee.
I think I heard this right, NBC exit poll talking about a lot more older voters compared to 2016. I thought Bernie was supposed to be getting all the kids out?
Also, far less "very liberal" voters and way more independents have turned out.
Depends on the state, but "Independent" often means to the left of the Democratic party mainstream, especially if it's people turning out for a Democratic primary.
I disagree. If you look at the "Which way did you vote in 2016" question, the Independents break 50:50.
Warren really must finish atleast second today, I feel.
She'll prolong for as long as possible. What's the odds of an 80 year old with one heart attack under his belt having a second during such a massively stressful time? She'll want to be in a strong position for the 1-5% chance that a new candidate needs to be found.
Also in a contested convention scenario she's much more acceptable to moderates than Bernie, and more acceptable to most (not all) of the Bernie delegates than Baemy, Biden, Buttigieg. She could walk in there with 5% of delegates and walk out the nominee.
Yep, exactly. She just needs to stay in the conversation.
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
Yet:
1952, 1956 Rep 1960, 1964 Dem 1968, 1972 Rep 1976 Dem 1980, 1984, 1988 Rep 1992, 1996 Dem 2000, 2004 Rep 2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":
Obama - 2 W Bush - 2 Clinton - 2 Bush - 1 Reagan - 2 Carter - 1 Ford - 1 Nixon - 1 and a bit LBJ - 1 and a bit JFK - half Eisenhower - 2
But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.
Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural tion.
Yes, I'd agree with all of that.
I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.
Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.
After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.
Check out all the other outcomes for Democrats on the map between 1968 and 1988. Not just losses, but body blows, and repeatedly. Once the counterculture arrived, only the end of the Cold War, and the arrival of Ross Perot, saved the game for Democrats. The exceptional two are Carter and Obama.
Polling has shown Bill Clinton would have won without Perot anyway as his voters were split between Bush and Clinton
I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.
Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.
After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.
Check out all the other outcomes for Democrats on the map between 1968 and 1988. Not just losses, but body blows, and repeatedly. Once the counterculture arrived, only the end of the Cold War, and the arrival of Ross Perot, saved the game for Democrats. The exceptional two are Carter and Obama.
Why did the counterculture bring about the end of the Democrats? Is your argument that the association of the counterculture with the Democrats - whether the party wanted it or not - alientaed mainstream America?
Yes, though like LBJ I think the hostile reaction to the African-American civil rights movement was more definitive.
CNN: "Biden ally: Former vice president’s path to nomination is "the Clinton model" From CNN's Eric Bradner
Joe Biden’s campaign co-chairman, Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, said the former vice president’s path to the Democratic nomination follows “the Clinton model” -- a reference to Bill Clinton’s primary win in 1992.
Of the first 11 primaries, the then-Arkansas governor had won just one -- Georgia. Then, on March 7, he won a dominating victory in South Carolina.
“He won one of the first 11 primaries. And then he won the twelfth one in South Carolina and that launched him to the presidency,” Richmond said.
Biden bailed on a planned New Hampshire primary-night party in Nashua, getting out of the state before suffering another embarrassing result. He hopped on a private flight to Columbia, South Carolina, for an event launching his campaign there.
CNN: "Biden ally: Former vice president’s path to nomination is "the Clinton model" From CNN's Eric Bradner
Joe Biden’s campaign co-chairman, Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, said the former vice president’s path to the Democratic nomination follows “the Clinton model” -- a reference to Bill Clinton’s primary win in 1992.
Of the first 11 primaries, the then-Arkansas governor had won just one -- Georgia. Then, on March 7, he won a dominating victory in South Carolina.
“He won one of the first 11 primaries. And then he won the twelfth one in South Carolina and that launched him to the presidency,” Richmond said.
Biden bailed on a planned New Hampshire primary-night party in Nashua, getting out of the state before suffering another embarrassing result. He hopped on a private flight to Columbia, South Carolina, for an event launching his campaign there.
There is a fundamental difference: in 1992, the more voters saw of Clinton, the more they liked him. In 2020, the more voters see of Biden...
CNN: "Biden ally: Former vice president’s path to nomination is "the Clinton model" From CNN's Eric Bradner
Joe Biden’s campaign co-chairman, Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, said the former vice president’s path to the Democratic nomination follows “the Clinton model” -- a reference to Bill Clinton’s primary win in 1992.
Of the first 11 primaries, the then-Arkansas governor had won just one -- Georgia. Then, on March 7, he won a dominating victory in South Carolina.
“He won one of the first 11 primaries. And then he won the twelfth one in South Carolina and that launched him to the presidency,” Richmond said.
Biden bailed on a planned New Hampshire primary-night party in Nashua, getting out of the state before suffering another embarrassing result. He hopped on a private flight to Columbia, South Carolina, for an event launching his campaign there.
There is a fundamental difference: in 1992, the more voters saw of Clinton, the more they liked him. In 2020, the more voters see of Biden...
Holy moly CNN, Klob in second from that, Biden complete collapse.
???
The early, early wards indicate that Klob has turned momentum into quite a lot of votes.
Well, she made a big show of turning up in Hart's Location last week to meet all the voters personally. I don't doubt it affected results from there, but who knows if the performance there will have an impact on the rest of the state.
Holy moly CNN, Klob in second from that, Biden complete collapse.
???
The early, early wards indicate that Klob has turned momentum into quite a lot of votes.
Well, she made a big show of turning up in Hart's Location last week to meet all the voters personally. I don't doubt it affected results from there, but who knows if the performance there will have an impact on the rest of the state.
That's not where I'm talking about, CNN had a ward in Concorde that Klob had won, with her being competitive with Sanders in a couple others.
Holy moly CNN, Klob in second from that, Biden complete collapse.
???
The early, early wards indicate that Klob has turned momentum into quite a lot of votes.
Well, she made a big show of turning up in Hart's Location last week to meet all the voters personally. I don't doubt it affected results from there, but who knows if the performance there will have an impact on the rest of the state.
That's not where I'm talking about, CNN had a ward in Concorde that Klob had won, with her being competitive with Sanders in a couple others.
Comments
@HYUFD - please don't let me down.
The later exit polls will have a higher share of young people as they vote latest.
https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2020/primary/dem/nhdem20-02.html
Buttigieg leads (just) among the 45 and older group, while Sanders absolutely smashes it with younger voters.
Could Biden do it here?
(Answer, probably not.)
Biden is finished - it’s all about a graceful exit. Tell me I’m wrong.
They have been re-elected roughly 90% of the time.
But I would add a caveat. I think we may all be a little fooled by randomness, seeing patterns where they don't exist. But I agree with your original premise: 90% of Presidents are re-elected.
In which case there really is no point in carrying on.
Bernie 30%
Pete 24%
Warren 15
Klobuchar 15
Biden 10
"As of late Tuesday afternoon, a total of 853 presidential campaign events have been held in New Hampshire, nearly 300 fewer than the amount held in Iowa before the caucuses last week.
That said, for the most part, the number of events each candidate held the Granite State doesn’t correspond with their standing in the state’s polls.
The most events were held by businessman Andrew Yang (133) and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (130), but they have gained little traction in the polls."
Last few days, last month, etc.
If you made your mind up last Thursday, which do you choose?
Of course, it's possible for Buttigieg to win the delegate math on those vote shares, because he'll do better in the First Congressional District (where fewer votes will be cast and there'll be fewer viable candidates) than in the Second.
Bernie 30
Pete 22
Warren 15
Klobouchar 12
Biden 12
So another hour of hearing how left handed half asian lesbians think healthcare is the most important issue.
https://twitter.com/docftw33/status/1227380423363354626
From CNN's Eric Bradner
Joe Biden’s campaign co-chairman, Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, said the former vice president’s path to the Democratic nomination follows “the Clinton model” -- a reference to Bill Clinton’s primary win in 1992.
Of the first 11 primaries, the then-Arkansas governor had won just one -- Georgia. Then, on March 7, he won a dominating victory in South Carolina.
“He won one of the first 11 primaries. And then he won the twelfth one in South Carolina and that launched him to the presidency,” Richmond said.
Biden bailed on a planned New Hampshire primary-night party in Nashua, getting out of the state before suffering another embarrassing result. He hopped on a private flight to Columbia, South Carolina, for an event launching his campaign there.
It's not 1%. It's Klobuchar with 8 votes.
My book would love that.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/new-hampshire?xid=ec_crm_nh_d
What's your source?
Sanders 2.1k
Klob 1.8k
Buttigeg 1.8k
Warren 0.8k
Biden 0.7k
What the last debate important to your vote? Yes 50%.
Biden not Liberal enough 39%
Warren too Liberal 44%
May have to stay up for this one!
Support Free College Tuition 67%
Women 55%
Gun Control Yes 80%
Sanders 28%
Buttigieg 22%
Klobuchar 21%
Sanders 27%
Buttigieg 22%
Klobuchar 21%
Very Liberal 21%
Conservative 39%
Over 100k income 27%
This looks like a very Conservative primary electorate, if Sanders wins it will be because Klobuchar and Buttigieg split the Conservative vote.
Get a grip Dems.
So what do you expect ?
It looks like Republicans have heavily voted in the Democratic Primary.