Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Election musings.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Election musings.

    1980- America takes a hard right 489-49 52.7% reporting


    1984- United States still believes in Conservatism. 525-13 53.1% reporting


    1988- Life after Reagan: Country believes Bush will continue the Status quo. 426-111 50.2% reporting


    1992- Oh ****, Bush is a Moderate! America can't see the difference between the two candidates. Elects the young cool guy. 370-168 55.2% reporting


    1996- Again, America see's no difference between the two, but elects the young cool guy. 379-159 49% reporting


    2000- America still can't see the difference between moderate Republican and Democrat. 271-266 (47.9-48.4% respectively) 54.2% reporting


    2004- War boons Bush's campaign, wins narrowly. 286-261 60.1% reporting


    2008- America can't tell the difference between the two, but that old ass white guy looks funny. 365-173 61.6% reporting


    2012- Can you see the difference? Me neither. 332-206 58.2% reporting


    In the last 100 years:

    8 Republican landslide elections (Harding 1920, Hoover 1928, Eisenhower 1952, 1956, Nixon 1972, Reagan 1980, 1984, Bush Sr 1988)

    6 Democrat landslides elections (Roosevelt 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, Truman 1948, Johnson 1964)

    6 non-landslides (Coolidge[R] 1924, Nixon[R] 1968, Clinton[D] 1992, 1996, Obama[D] 2008, 2012)

    5 close (Wilson[D]/Hughes[R] 1916, Kennedy[D]/Nixon[R] 1960, Carter[D]/Ford[R] 1976, Bush[R]/Gore[D] 2000, Bush[R]/Kerry[D] 2004).


    To further break down the last 36 years-

    Bush Sr won his first term riding the coat tails of Reaganism and then lost to a nobody in his incumbent campaign because he had abandoned Reaganism and moved moderate. Bob Dole was a moderate and lost. Then they nominated Bush Jr, and he lost the popular vote but managed to win the electoral college. Bush Jr won the 2004 election because of the war. Then the party nominated John McCain, a moderate. Then, a liberal turned Rhino, the father of Obamacare, Mitt Romney. Bush Jr was the only moderate that has been able to win an election, and America HATED him when it was all said and done.

    Look at the sympathetic elections. Truman won because of the Democratic swing, but was too moderate to keep it going. Johnson won because of the Kennedy assassination but was succeeded by Nixon. Bush Sr won because of Reaganism but was succeeded by Clinton. Eisenhower was a 2 term Republican and 1960 was a close election to Kennedy. Nixon won 2 terms (the second was a blowout) and the country barely elected Carter over Ford next. Eight years after the big Nixon win, the country elected Reagan.

    Its reasonable to assume that the conservative movement started with Nixon, climaxed in 1984 and died because of Bush Sr. Since Bush Sr, Democrats have occupied the White House 2/3rds of the time, but have not been popular enough to conclude this a democratic era. Rather, the last 24 years can be attributed to the GOP nominating poor candidates and the Democrats electing "cool" dudes.

    The Democrats have a recent history of nominating upstarts and nobodies. Since Johnson, they have nominated Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama.

    Humphrey was Mayor of Minneapolis, Majority Whip for four years, and then Johnson's VP before Spiro Agnew before being nominated to challenge Nixon in 1968.

    George McGovern was a US senator from South Dakota for 10 years before being nominated. He was the first and only Chair of the United States Senate Select Committee on nutrition and Human Needs. He "challenged" Nixon, too.

    Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer before serving on the local school board. He translated that to 4 years in office as a State Senator, 2 failed attempts at governor and 1 successful one (4 years) before winning the nomination for President. He won, narrowly, against Ford.

    Walter Mondale was Attorney General in MN from 60-64, US Senator 64-76, and Carters VP. He was slaughtered by Reagan in 84.

    Michael Dukakis was a Massachusetts State Senator for 6 years and the Governor of Massachusetts for 4 years before running against Bush Sr. Kerry was one of his Lt's.

    Bill Clinton was a 2 term Governor of Arkansas and Attorney General of Arkansas before being nominated to run against Bush Sr. He won.

    Al Gore was a Senator for 8 years before serving 8 years as Clintons VP. He almost beat a Bush, too.

    John Kerry was the Lt Governor to Dukakis and a Senator for almost 20 years when he ran against Bush.

    Obama was a Community Organizer and a member of the Illinois Senate for 7 years and a US Senator for 3 years.

    Based on history, Sanders will pull this off.

    For the GOP, based on recent history, it will be Rubio.
    People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. -Isaac Asimov

  • #2
    This is too tough for me. Could you put it in a paragraph how you come to this conclusion? Thanks.

    I've already gave the nod to Rubio for the Republicans. I haven't given a prediction for the Democrats. I think Sanders has a tough difficult task but it's possible.
    In the fast lane

    Comment


    • #3
      It was less of me making a point and more of a bunch of interesting information and history from which I extrapolated 2 nominations based solely on history and past actions. However, I think Cruz will win the nomination and have a Nixon-esque rise in popularity.
      People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. -Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • #4
        Any mention of Bush Sr losing to Clinton without including Ross Perot in the discussion is long on statistics but short on "the way it was".

        Bubba was very charismatic, and reelecting him was pretty obvious.

        His scandal at the end of the second term and Gore's goofy demeanor caused the nation to turn back right.

        Kerry's ineptidue and a sitting wartime President made reelecting Bush pretty easy.

        McCain was an awful competitor. Embarrassing, actually -- and Obama being a young, unvetted, minority allowed him to easily kick McCain's butt.

        The last election is a little unexplicable. There's no way Romney lost as badly as was reported. There is mass corruption in the voting system by hackers that are funded by wayward aliens from the planet Merkoid. Obama is half-Merkoidian and seeks to implement carbon tax in order to fund their trip back to the mother ship.
        Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!

        Comment


        • #5
          Reagan strikes me as being rather moderate in terms of many conservatives today, so the point that Bush lost because he was discovered to be moderate seems a bit silly to me. Not to mention the obvious lack of including Perot's influence.

          Reagan was a complex guy, and you can cherry-pick quotes from him to back-up any point ... but generally speaking he's rather moderate compared to many current candidates. He compromised, he slashed taxes, he raised taxes (including what was, at least at the time, the largest tax increase in California history, and the largest peace-time increase in US history); he squashed strikers, he spoke highly of collective-bargaining; he challenged the USSR, he negotiated with the USSR; he created conflict in Nicaragua, he fled conflict in Lebanon; he opposed abortion, he signed fairly liberal abortion laws; he opposed many liberal welfare programs, his political idol was FDR; he gave us one of the most conservative Supreme Court Justices, he gave us one of the most liberal Supreme Court Justices, he argued for amnesty for illegal immigrants, he was rather liberal regarding environmental protection.

          I'm not sure if there's any issue Reagan was fundamentally, without question, conservative on, other than military spending. Reagan's true, unquestioned, legacy was in his ability to lead, willingness to adapt his beliefs given new information, and ability to earn the respect of even his opponents.
          Last edited by Rlh04d; November 9, 2015, 10:21 AM.
          Originally posted by BleacherReport
          Fred VanVleet on Shockers' 3-Pt Shooting Confidence -- ' Honestly, I just tell these guys to let their nuts hang.'

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kung Wu View Post
            Any mention of Bush Sr losing to Clinton without including Ross Perot in the discussion is long on statistics but short on "the way it was".

            His scandal at the end of the second term and Gore's goofy demeanor caused the nation to turn back right.
            His influence is barely comparable to Perot's, but I'd also argue Nader's influence in the 2000 election was rather important.
            Originally posted by BleacherReport
            Fred VanVleet on Shockers' 3-Pt Shooting Confidence -- ' Honestly, I just tell these guys to let their nuts hang.'

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Rlh04d View Post
              His influence is barely comparable to Perot's, but I'd also argue Nader's influence in the 2000 election was rather important.
              Interesting. I don't remember him playing that big of a part in the outcome, but I do remember he was gaining more traction than he ever had (and getting more media time).
              Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kung Wu View Post
                Interesting. I don't remember him playing that big of a part in the outcome, but I do remember he was gaining more traction than he ever had (and getting more media time).
                George W Bush won the 2000 election essentially via 537 votes in Florida, which decided the Electoral College victory. Nader had 97,488 votes in Florida. Of course it had a big part in the outcome. The hippies that voted for Nader weren't going to vote for Bush without Nader around :D

                Similarly, Perot's influence on the 1992 election wasn't about his 39 million popular votes -- those are heavily weighted towards many states where Perot actually had no influence, such as the ~5.8 million votes he put up in California, Texas, New York, and Florida, realistically all of which either voted R anyway or weren't going to vote R. Even against Dukakis, Bush had barely won California, and lost New York; against a far more likable candidate Bush had no shot there. Perot's real influence was on Georgia, Ohio, New Jersey, and a few other key states, all of which Bush would have won without Perot's candidacy.
                Originally posted by BleacherReport
                Fred VanVleet on Shockers' 3-Pt Shooting Confidence -- ' Honestly, I just tell these guys to let their nuts hang.'

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Rlh04d View Post
                  George W Bush won the 2000 election essentially via 537 votes in Florida, which decided the Electoral College victory. Nader had 97,488 votes in Florida. Of course it had a big part in the outcome. The hippies that voted for Nader weren't going to vote for Bush without Nader around
                  Wow, I had totally forgotten how close that was!
                  Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ah yes, the event that introduced "hanging chad" into mainstream lexicon.

                    Chad Johnson . . . snicker, snicker.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X