That didn't seem to scare off Obama.

In 2016, with the current state of the parties, and where the country is moving generally, the Republicans really shouldn't be coming close in a presidential election. But the Republicans are polling really well against Sanders and Clinton. Whatever "safe and smart" strategies these Dems are utilizing, it may very well result in President Trump.

That's some bullshit false equivalence right there.

I'd agree that Obama took a risk, especially with how the campaign played out from SC on, but I think that's the exception rather than the rule.

The Dems face one really difficult fundamental, we don't like to give one party control of the White House for more than two consecutive terms. I still think Hillary is the favorite given the changing demographics and the extreme positions of some of the GOP, but it's going to be very close. I don't think there's any Dem that could change that.

This statement is what hacks me off about the Republicans right now. They are barking up the wrong tree, forget the social issues, focus on economic policy and we can have a very good discussion. But no, they focus on Know-Nothing politics and are squandering what should be a very winnable election cycle.

That's kind of a recent development. Before Bill Clinton took office, five of the previous six Presidential terms of office had been in the hands of the Republican Party, beginning with Richard Nixon. However, prior to Nixon, Democrats had held the White House for seven of the previous nine terms.

The recent trade-off, is it because politics have polarized? Is it because of the Bush name having high recognition value after Clinton?

I'm not saying that it's definitely going to switch or that it's definitely going to stay in Democratic hands, but I *am* saying that the tag-you're-it from 1992 to the present day isn't really a great comparison when you look at 1932-1992. That sixty-year period was a pretty reliable bloc of control by one party or the other. The last couple decades have been more schizophrenic, but one could make the argument that's more about candidate quality than about "we don't like to give one party control for more than two terms."

But from 1952 to today, we've only had one instance of one party controlling for three terms(Reagan/Bush).

Eisenhower -2
Kennedy/Johnson -2
Nixon-2
Carter -1
Reagan -2
Bush -1
Clinton -2
Bush -2
Obama -2

You can argue Carter was an anomaly after Watergate, but it's very difficult to win three consecutive terms for one party.

edit: If Ford had won, I doubt Reagan is ever elected. If he beat Ford in the 1980 primary he would have had a tough time with the Ford recession weighing him down and an argument that we should revolt against the GOP policies with GOP policies. By 1984 he would have been 73 and possibly running against the headwind of the Dem recovery.

Well, yeah, but 4 of those 7 terms were FDR ;).

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 3m3 minutes ago
Prediction markets give Lincoln Chafee a 0 percent chance of winning the nomination. We think that's too high. Did The Democratic Debate Change The Odds? | FiveThirtyEight

That three term exception is largely because Dukakis ran such a terrible campaign. The fundamentals were there for him to win.

'88 was the same as '00, for me. With a half-way decent candidate, people just wanted a change.

Okay but let's take a look.


Kennedy vs Nixon was television's coming out party. I'd argue that wasn't as much about "we don't want a third Republican term" as "holy shit Nixon looks old and Kennedy looks young and vigorous which is what we want in our President with the Russians making noises."


LBJ is said to have remarked that "we've lost the South for a generation" after he signed the Civil Rights Act, and Nixon's successful run for the Presidency was predicated on the "Southern Strategy" - go get all those disaffected Southern Democrats and get 'em to vote Republican. Was that about "we don't want a third Democratic term"? I don't know. I mean, maybe you could make that argument, that it was pushback from a significant-enough part of the population that wasn't thrilled with civil rights. But I'm not sure that's symptomatic of Democratic fatigue as much as just the timing of the CRA vs the 1968 elections.


Reasonably sure that if there hadn't been a 1-2 punch of Bush conceding on tax cuts and a recession, he gets re-elected with ease. Remember, his approval rating was north of 90% in 1991, during the first Gulf War. Really not sure you can call that one "we don't like giving one party that long in office."


There's some debate, of course, over whether Bush "won" the 2000 election. I mean, that the election was even close enough for there to be debate is probably because Gore had all the charisma of a dessicated stick. There may have been some Clinton fatigue. Maybe whoever the Democrats nominate in 2000 fails to get to measure for new drapes. But wooden Gore versus charismatic Dubya is probably not the best measuring stick for whether people just don't like electing one party to 3+ terms in the White House.


There have been three other opportunities besides the anomaly you cite in the last 112+ years for the party controlling the White House to gain a third consecutive term. Harding won in a three-way contest, Kennedy beat Nixon, and Bush beat Gore. I mean, that's it. Those three and Carter are the only examples of an incumbent party failing to win a third term.

Harding was a member of the party out of power after the Great War, I already discussed the age-versus-youth bit that the televised debates contributed to 1968, and the charisma-versus-woodenness that plagued Gore.

I'm not sure any of those three are necessarily indicative of a societal revulsion against electing giving one party three consecutive terms in office.

Nicely done, and I agree with your conclusion that the evidence of such a inherent issue is, at most, very questionable.

Very interesting stuff. A few fireside thoughts.

There's something about the party in charge during war does not stay in power in peace. WW1, 2 (UK too), Vietnam, gulf war. Maybe it's the enviable post war economy slump...

New voters also have a big impact: women in 1920, poor minorities 1960. In fact Kennedy won because he got the young/under educated, poor, minority MALE vote. Not sure how many of those would be swayed by tv looks.

3rd party I think is the biggest factor. I think maybe bush and for sure gore would have won if not for a more far right/left anti-establishment candidate.

I agree with only going a far back as you did. From 1860-1920 the Republican Party was really two separate ideologies under a very big tent.

I think our disagreement is really about the importance of campaigns. I've been swayed that campaigns don't do much and the fundamentals are more important in who wins. I do think likability is important, but that's about it.

As to the above, maybe I misunderstand, but what about 1968 and 2008? Those were years when the incumbent party lost the chance for a third term.

I think the fact that Trump and Carson are the front-runners right now is ultimately more significant than historical trends.

I also think too much trend-worship can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.

Right now, the Republicans are super-vulnerable, and the Democrats are choosing not to take advantage, which I really think could lead to a very interesting change in the oval office.

What should the Democrats be doing to take advantage?

This was one of the reasons given for why the Democratic field is so weak this year. Why everyone is stepping aside for a front-runner who is pretty unpopular with both sides, and who is very beatable. A solid electable Democrat shouldn't have any problem with Trump or Carson, but Clinton and Sanders could actually make it interesting.

So are you asserting that Clinton isn't a solid electable Democrat?

I don't know how much this matters, but if you were to take every candidate running from both parties and just ask "which of these people most looks like a person who would play the President in a movie," I think that O'Malley wins easily.

that should really be the only criteria that matters.

Well, I'm voting for her (assuming no miraculous comebacks on the Republican side that encourage me to revisit someone who's under the radar in the single digits right now), but I do fear a Clinton nomination might lead to President Trump. I think there's a lot of people more liberal than me who really don't like her and might stay home, vote third party, or consider a Republican.

I just wish we had more of what we have on the Republican side, a bunch of different conceivably electable candidates. Instead it's just the extreme left guy and the capable mainstay who could be destroyed by scandal at any time. It feels that this should more be a golden age of electable Democrats and it would have been nice if this election could be a showcase of that. I get there's other considerations about not wanting to lose and not wanting to take on a Clinton, but it's just what I would prefer.

It could be fun to have a "order the candidates by how scared you'd be if they got elected" list. For me the high points would be:

Clinton
Trump
Carson

I'd vote for almost anybody from either party running against one of those 3.

After redistricting, the Democrats don't have a deep bench. Where are the candidates ready for a presidential election? Who could be running that isn't?

Al Gore?

Ted Cruz probably tops my list of scary candidates.


I'm liberal, so it's probably no surprise that I want Bernie, but I'll vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination.

Take this to the other thread if you want, but I'm not convinced Trump will win the GOP nomination.


Fair enough. But is there a candidate out there who brings those demographics out to the polls while also running a solid campaign, raising a metric ton of money and holding onto Democratic centrists?


A topic for the other thread, but this seems like an overly optimistic view of the GOP candidates. :D


If Clinton was going to be destroyed by scandal, it would have happened by now. She's been in public life, on the national stage, for 25 years. She's survived Whitewater, Lewinsky, Benghazi, EmailGate and a veritable cottage industry set up specifically to slime her and Bill. What, conceivably, is going to sink her now?


It is what it is.

Biden, Kristen Gillibrand, a number of governors. Cory Booker? Julian Castro? Deval Patrick (hahaha)? I get that many are hoping to inherit the Clinton apparatus instead of running against it, but I don't understand why one young politician who might not quite be ready isn't running to get their name out there and be considered a frontrunner for 2020 or 2024.

I get Castro or Patrick out of that list, but that just really proves the point that there aren't a lot of options. When Biden is on the list, the bench isn't deep.

This is a point I kinda touched on elsewhere last night. Not even the proverbial sex with a goat on the town square is going to send her supporters anywhere at this point. She probably has the most solid base of any candidate in either party.

No Elizabeth Warren?

Do you know why I can name John Kasich, or Martin O'Malley, or Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz off the top of my head? Because they threw their hat in the ring, even if they're polling within the margin of error. Malloy, Hickenlooper, Warner, Kaine, Jay Nixon?, Cuomo all seem like additional potential candidates from the Senate/Governor sides. Not sure why you don't think Booker would benefit from a run. Shit, I'll throw in one more senator in Whitehouse from Rhode Island based on name alone :)

The "bench" isn't deep because Hillary has been sucking a lot of the attention and money away from the younger generation... and the one who did challenge her beat her. Even now you see Bernie Sanders getting a big surge from young/ABH voters - you really think one of the other people mentioned couldn't have gotten that segment, set themselves up as a go to political show voice, and a frontrunner for 2020 or 2024? Seems to make more sense than fighting with the other 15 people who all want to be Hillary's heir apparent.

She was already mentioned, and I agree with other people both that she (and Gillibrand) would cannibalize a lot of Hilary's support and thus are better positioned to wait her out and inherit that mantle, and that she's a much better fit in the Senate. Both as an advocate for her causes, and because I'm not sure how well she'd do in a presidential election or debate (re: the latter though, I personally disliked her attitude and approach in Mass, so I might be wrong.)

Hilary causes me to physically convulse when I see or hear her talk. I haven't decided if I'll support Biden in the general if he were to win. He has some really problematic votes over the years. I suspect it'll be another wasted vote for Stein for me.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not necessarily saying nobody should have run, although I get the fear of burning bridges. I'm saying there's few people strong enough to make a serious run. O'Malley was supposed to be a strong contender and he can't break 5%. The Dem bench looks like the 2015 Reds bench.

But a lot of where that (perceived) bench comes from is a previous run or getting yourself on the talking head shows. Who are the Democrats people know? Hilary, Biden, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren? People are even mentioning Al Gore because nobody even knows who the younger Dems are, and I personally think a lot of that is due to Hilary's dominating presence at the top soaking up the media attention and money.

I also might be biased with living in Mass, but I feel the Republicans are also much more open to pulling in potential candidates from outside the political structure (Senate, Governors, Cabinet appointees), while the last Democratic one is probably Al Sharpton (I guess Wesley Clark ran in 2004 too). I do see that Lawrence Lessig is running - idk if he's viable, but I would've loved for him to be on that debate stage!

There's some truth to Hillary sucking the air. I think it's also more difficult when you've held the WH for two terms. The people that would get air time fighting the opposition aren't doing that when their party controls the presidency.

The general critique of not having a lot of visible Dems is dead on. Personally, I think the big problem is that the party doesn't stand for anything. What are Dems proposing and doing? Eerything is too focused on defending things from the GOP.

mmm, I think World War I was about 'holy shit the war is over now let's let our hair down.'

I'm not sure what the deal was with Truman's unpopularity after World War II. If Roosevelt doesn't die in his 4th term, I wonder if he gets re-elected to a 5th? The United States was the only significant functioning Western economy after World War II, though. I don't think the US saw post-war recession until the end of the Korean War. It took a while for Western Europe to find their feet again. Negative economics haven't dovetailed with wars ending in the United States all that often. Even the Great Depression took a decade after WWI to hit us. In between you had the Roaring 20s.


Not sure I agree with you on minorities influencing the 1960 election. The Civil Rights Act wasn't signed into law until 1964, after Kennedy's assassination. The civil rights movement was in full swing by 1960, but Jim Crow was still very much alive, especially when it came to denying blacks the franchise.


Well, I mean, the Republican Party in 2015 is three separate ideologies under a shrinking tent, so make of that what you will.


Yeah, 2008 is fair. I missed that one. But even if you ascribe that to Republican fatigue rather than Bush toxicity, that's still a really recent development and doesn't really fit the pattern established by the other scenarios I mentioned.

1968 I failed to mention in my summary, but I did discuss it in my blow-by-blow breakdown. That one was goofy because you had the guy who won the second term get assassinated and the guy who succeeded him pissed off an entire wing of the party by signing civil rights legislation, driving them into the arms of Nixon and his Southern Strategy.

But then you look at that and, as I ALSO mentioned earlier, Republicans had the White House nearly unbroken from 1968 to 1992. Only four years of a Democratic President in that span. So if you want to hold up 1968 as Democratic fatigue, you open yourself to having to answer the question: why did Republicans hold the White House for 20 of the next 24 years if third terms are such anathema?

I'd agree with this. The current party are so concerned with avoiding gaffes and triangulating things every which way to Sunday that most of them forgot they want to stand for anything. It's what makes Warren & Sanders seem so unique, when in reality they should be part of a bigger and more robust group.

So what IS the deal with the post-debate polls? Sanders supporters spamming? CNN really has pro-Clinton agenda? Sanders supporters are making some pretty serious claims. What's the reality?

Best overall analysis I've read is here:

Did the Media Get the Democratic Debate Wrong? - The New Yorker

Basically, my thumbnail: Sure, the online "polls" tend toward the excitable, so they'll go for Sanders, so we mostly discount that. But hands-on focus groups back that up, and that should be taken more seriously, suggesting there's some broader sentiment that "solid, electable, professional, clinical" might score debate points with analysts but not with voters right now, for whatever reason.

I personally watched with great interest in Sanders' ability to appear "presidential," but I admit my own bias that I think that's his weakness (I personally don't think he passes the eye test there). So, when he waves his arms and talks about wealth inequality, I see him failing, but viewers might be seeing him succeeding by being passionate and articulate. I think that might be a lot of the disconnect, writ large. Analysts already baked in much of the Sanders show, but discounted the fact that tons of people might have actually been seeing him for the first time (at least in any depth whatsoever) and could have liked what they saw in stuff that the talking heads considered inconsequential.

I'm also in a weird spot in this election. Even though I have no chance of affecting the outcome of anything (I'm not a primary voter, and my state will not be a swing state in the general election) I still take my vote seriously. My vote actually doesn't county for much of anything except the occasional ballot issue - my district is deeply one-party in every respect, though the pre-destined winning party varies based on which level of gerrymandering I'm a victim of.

With the wide array of possible pairings we could see from these two deeply flawed parties and the primary voters and superdelegates who decide this stuff, I have almost no clue what box I'll end up checking come November 2016.

It's almost too bad we can't have a domestic president and a foreign president.

"Bernie, you handle things here. Hillary, you handle international affairs and the military. What? No, no it's not the same as being Secretary of State, it's totally different."

Good heavens, though, imagine the pairings! Domestic Sanders, Foreign Trump? Domestic Cruz, Foreign Webb?

It seems like Trump and Sanders out-polling the expert's view of where they should be might just be the voters responding to years of conditioning.

The political insiders/experts know that a lot of the political fights in this country boil down to "In my opinion, my opponent's economic plan will lead to slightly lower overall growth than mine. Further, his plan benefits special interests more closely aligned with his party at the expense of special interests more closely aligned with my party."

But that is not what they've been telling the voters. Even as the major candidates themselves have managed to avoid massive hyperbole, the party outreach has been off the rails for a while. Every fundraising email I get predicts some version of the end of America as I know it if the other side wins. Both parties are guilty of this. It isn't a debate over a few percentage points on marginal tax rates. It is, without exaggeration, life and death. Every election.

So, go figure, we've finally decided to support candidates who seem to get it. Whose rhetoric matches the rhetoric that we've been conditioned to accept over the last decade or so.

Damn. A good majority of you guys are really out of touch with the under 30 generation.

Shocker, right?

What am I missing, other than your annoying insistence of staying on my lawn despite my requests otherwise?

Sun Tzu just heard of Bernie Sanders last month and now he thinks he's a political expert and everyone here is beneath him. Vintage Sun Tzu

Or maybe your 20-somethings you associate with are out of touch with the over-30 generation?

This election is certainly a prime example of why 30 -- minimum -- should probably be the voting age.

Sanders is what he is, and what he's only ever been this entire election. First, he is a left alternative that will both challenge Clinton on her platform. Next, he is supposed to challenge her so she gets sharp and strong on the campaign trail for the general. Third, he allows her to move to the left, but still look much more center and the only center left option for the left leaning independents. There are a number of cognitive techniques in play that are designed to be able to "sell" Clinton to the masses better. That's what Sanders is, it's all Sanders is.

ewww. if that happened, we'd get all the old pervs voting palin into office.

i'd much rather see 60 max (after that the hearts just seem to calcify). don't let people vote if they won't live to see the fruits of the term. don't old folks just vote out of spite to pick the candidate that will fuck up the world most for the young'uns?