Are we Americans ready for a large landslide in 2016?

[Derideo_Te]

They need to be correlated to incidents of mumps among tribes of New Guinea.

Yes we will have a landslide. President Ted Cruz's victory of socialist Bernie Sanders will be remembered among the most lopsided in history.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.

I can't stand you but yes yes that was that funny! Oh and as far as OP goes...I think if its Hillary as the nominee then yes I think the GOP will win a HUGE lopsided victory if its Sanders vs GOP no I don't think it will be. I think it will be VERY VERY close and a 3rd party might actually be the reason the winner wins.

hillary will not lose in a "HUGE lopsided victory", notwithstanding your proficiency with caps. Women, Minorities, LGBT and young people are NOT voting for a rightwingnut. If there is a democratic loss (which is doubtful given the right's inability to proffer a candidate who doesn't make 51% of the electorate gag) it would be by the narrowest of margins and probably with chicanery like there was in 2000

Well you're right. Hillary will not lose. Because she wont appear on the ballot, having dropped out to mount her defense against espionage charges.

Rabbid must have used spell check to get espionage right but he obviously doesn't have a clue what it means.

 

[Auld Phart]

Clinton ain't winning 400 EVs.

Not.

Gonna.

Happen.

If Republicans run anyone but Bush......Hillary takes 400

Your hair ball tell you that?

No, Mr Greenjeans did

 

[Auld Phart]

Clinton ain't winning 400 EVs.

Not.

Gonna.

Happen.

If Republicans run anyone but Bush......Hillary takes 400

400 months in prison?

Some of you are going to be spitting mad when she takes the oath of office.

and even more will be spitting mad when she's not even invited to the Inauguration.

 

[Auld Phart]

They need to be correlated to incidents of mumps among tribes of New Guinea.

Yes we will have a landslide. President Ted Cruz's victory of socialist Bernie Sanders will be remembered among the most lopsided in history.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.

I can't stand you but yes yes that was that funny! Oh and as far as OP goes...I think if its Hillary as the nominee then yes I think the GOP will win a HUGE lopsided victory if its Sanders vs GOP no I don't think it will be. I think it will be VERY VERY close and a 3rd party might actually be the reason the winner wins.

hillary will not lose in a "HUGE lopsided victory", notwithstanding your proficiency with caps. Women, Minorities, LGBT and young people are NOT voting for a rightwingnut. If there is a democratic loss (which is doubtful given the right's inability to proffer a candidate who doesn't make 51% of the electorate gag) it would be by the narrowest of margins and probably with chicanery like there was in 2000

Well you're right. Hillary will not lose. Because she wont appear on the ballot, having dropped out to mount her defense against espionage charges.

Yer a wizard harry, look into the crystal ball, you're always right.

At this point, EVERYONE is looking into a crystal ball.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I tend to disagree wtih the OP pretending there's much correlation between numbers whenever and now for pres elections. But I do agree that politics has largely not change in the last century and a half.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I was actually thinking of giving this thread the title "Is this the 2nd Gilded Age?"....

I want to make a historical point.

Here are the presidential cycles since 1856 (inclusion of the GOP in national elections and the electoral college) where the winner of the NPV won with over +10% (landslide margin):

1860, 1864, 1872, 1904, 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, (1940), 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, (1980), 1984.

I bolded 1872 and 1904 because in-between, there were 7 presidential cycles in a row where the national margin was well under +10:

1872: Grant +11.80%
------------------------------------------------------
1876: Tilden +3.00% (Hayes won in the EC by 1 elector, 185/184)
1880: Garfield +0.10% (narrowest NPV win in our history)
1884: Cleveland +0.57% (looks a lot like Gore, 2000)
1888: Cleveland +0.83% (Harrison won in the EC, 233/168)
1892: Cleveland +3.01%
1896: McKinley +4.31%
1900: McKinley +6.16%
------------------------------------------------------
1904: T. Roosevelt +18.82%

Fast forward to 1984. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan easily won re-election with an impressive landslide +18.22%. Since 1988, there have now been 7 cycles in a row where the winning margin, like 1876-1900, was under +10%, and mostly well under +10:

1984: Reagan +18.22%
-----------------------------------------------------
1988: Bush 41 +7.73%
1992: Clinton +5.56%
1996: Clinton +8.52%
2000: Gore +0.52% (Bush won in the EC by 5 electors, 271/266, 2nd narrowest EC win ever)
2004: Bush 43 +2.46%
2008: Obama +7.26%
2012: Obama +3.86%
----------------------------------------------------
2016: ????

When you scratch under the surface, there are more similarities than we may realize between the so-called "Gilded age" in US electoral politics (1876-1900) and the time frame from 1988-2012:

-in both periods, there was at least one electoral backfire, where one nominee won in the NPV but lost in the EC. In the Gilded Age, it happened in both 1876 and 1888. In the currect age, it happened in 2000.

-each of those periods saw one of two closest EC wins ever, in 1876 and in 2000. And in both of those cases, it was also a so-called electoral backfire.

-in the Gilded age, the margins were from +0.1% up to about +6%, a spread of almost 6 points. From 1988 through 2012, the margins were from +0.5% to about +8.50%, a spread of 8 points.

-in both periods, 2 nominees won in the NPV at least twice: Cleveland and McKinley in the Gilded Age, and Clinton and Obama in the current age.

-in both periods, there was one "dynasty win", where a relative of a former President won election: Harrison in 1888 and Bush 43 in 2000/2004.

In other words, both periods have demonstrated a time of very polarized politics.

In 1904, Roosevelt broke the narrow-margin trend and won with almost +19. It was an absolute blowout in 1904, one of the most unsung massive landslides in our history.

So, regardless of which way 2016 goes, I suspect that 2016 will indeed be a +10 or more landslide in the NPV. If that doesn't happen, then a new statistical record would be set and we would have, for the first time ever, 8 presidential cycles in a row with an NPV margin under +10.

Looking from 1940 onwards, we saw, generally, a big landslide every 8 to 12 years.

In 2016, it will be 32 years since the last real NPV landslide win. I would say that it is about time.

And to be honest, I personally think that a massive landslide now and then, regardless who wins, is good for us, because it means an undeniable mandate for the person who wins. I also personally think that it will be the Democrat, but that's beyond the point. Were the Republican to win with a resounding landslide in 2016, I still think it would be good for us, for at least the one reason I just listed.

Discuss. Did you know about this historical fact concerning our elections? Do you think a landslide is on the way?

Please try to discuss like an adult...

Landslides often happen because the previous president was rubbish.

Obama, clear why he had a landslide, Reagan too.

Obama, however, isn't doing as badly as Carter or Bush were doing, not by a long way. I don't see a landslide unless it is for there being a bad candidate,

 

[Statistikhengst]

Ummm.........some people in this forum have the political IQ of a small soap dish.

Nobody knows about the Senate or the '16 general election but one thing that is certain is the House will be controlled by the GOP..........AT LEAST until 2020.

I'll let one of my conservative pals tell the dolts why..............

I concur with you about the HOR. With the heavy gerrymandering that has happened, I see no way for the Democrats to recapture the House (if current conditions prevail), even in the case of a D-national landslide.

But the chances of the D's retaking the Senate are enormously high.
And the Presidency as well. But that's my opinion (backed up by 393 polls and 1,706 matchups to date...)

 

[Statistikhengst]

They need to be correlated to incidents of mumps among tribes of New Guinea.

Yes we will have a landslide. President Ted Cruz's victory of socialist Bernie Sanders will be remembered among the most lopsided in history.

So, yes, you too are too stupid to actually know how to read and OP and discern some.

Do you dispute even one bit of the data?

I dispute its relevance to anything. Do you dispute that mumps incidence among New Guinea islanders will be a major consideration in the final EV tally?

Elections statistics - which also show trends over time and are also yet another indicator of the consistency of human behavior, have nothing to do with mumps in New Guinea.

I am sorry if you are just too stupid to realize this.

Maybe you can make some more cool, yet very false, Greece predictions. That seems to be more up your alley.

No they do not show trends over time. They show what happened at one time. But that is not germane to this time. It is equally valid to say incidents of mumps are predictors of the future.
Correlation is not causality. I am sorry if your are too poorly educated to understand this.

No. You are wrong. Electoral results also show some recognizable patterns in electoral behavior, irregardless of candidates and issues. You just have to be smart enough to be able to read numbers and be willing to learn some. Sorry, looks like you are out of luck. Tsk, tsk.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's always good for a laugh when a German national, possible jobless former East German Stasi, presumes to lecture Americans on American politics.

Hoping for a new job?

Who in the world are you talking about?

Are you insane, or just drunk out of your skull? Skull-fucked, perhaps?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Still over a year away and people talking about landslides sheesh.

agreed. but he's simply reviewing history. i don't think he's saying it has definitive predictive value. it is simply an interesting circumstance to consider at this point.

Correct, and in fact, I wrote this:

So, regardless of which way 2016 goes, I suspect that 2016 will indeed be a +10 or more landslide in the NPV. If that doesn't happen, then a new statistical record would be set and we would have, for the first time ever, 8 presidential cycles in a row with an NPV margin under +10.

Looking from 1940 onwards, we saw, generally, a big landslide every 8 to 12 years.

In 2016, it will be 32 years since the last real NPV landslide win. I would say that it is about time.

And to be honest, I personally think that a massive landslide now and then, regardless who wins, is good for us, because it means an undeniable mandate for the person who wins. I also personally think that it will be the Democrat, but that's beyond the point. Were the Republican to win with a resounding landslide in 2016, I still think it would be good for us, for at least the one reason I just listed.

Of course, the pre-requisite for this is that people must actually read the material before frothing at the mouth.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Im right more often than wrong.
Hillary cannot now mount an effective campaign as she struggles with containing this monster. Every day there are new revelations and developments. No campaign can fight two battles at once.
And with Obama probably pushing Biden and promising him his network of operatives etc, Obama will push Hillary out of the race. He never liked her anyway.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I was actually thinking of giving this thread the title "Is this the 2nd Gilded Age?"....

I want to make a historical point.

Here are the presidential cycles since 1856 (inclusion of the GOP in national elections and the electoral college) where the winner of the NPV won with over +10% (landslide margin):

1860, 1864, 1872, 1904, 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, (1940), 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, (1980), 1984.

I bolded 1872 and 1904 because in-between, there were 7 presidential cycles in a row where the national margin was well under +10:

1872: Grant +11.80%
------------------------------------------------------
1876: Tilden +3.00% (Hayes won in the EC by 1 elector, 185/184)
1880: Garfield +0.10% (narrowest NPV win in our history)
1884: Cleveland +0.57% (looks a lot like Gore, 2000)
1888: Cleveland +0.83% (Harrison won in the EC, 233/168)
1892: Cleveland +3.01%
1896: McKinley +4.31%
1900: McKinley +6.16%
------------------------------------------------------
1904: T. Roosevelt +18.82%

Fast forward to 1984. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan easily won re-election with an impressive landslide +18.22%. Since 1988, there have now been 7 cycles in a row where the winning margin, like 1876-1900, was under +10%, and mostly well under +10:

1984: Reagan +18.22%
-----------------------------------------------------
1988: Bush 41 +7.73%
1992: Clinton +5.56%
1996: Clinton +8.52%
2000: Gore +0.52% (Bush won in the EC by 5 electors, 271/266, 2nd narrowest EC win ever)
2004: Bush 43 +2.46%
2008: Obama +7.26%
2012: Obama +3.86%
----------------------------------------------------
2016: ????

When you scratch under the surface, there are more similarities than we may realize between the so-called "Gilded age" in US electoral politics (1876-1900) and the time frame from 1988-2012:

-in both periods, there was at least one electoral backfire, where one nominee won in the NPV but lost in the EC. In the Gilded Age, it happened in both 1876 and 1888. In the currect age, it happened in 2000.

-each of those periods saw one of two closest EC wins ever, in 1876 and in 2000. And in both of those cases, it was also a so-called electoral backfire.

-in the Gilded age, the margins were from +0.1% up to about +6%, a spread of almost 6 points. From 1988 through 2012, the margins were from +0.5% to about +8.50%, a spread of 8 points.

-in both periods, 2 nominees won in the NPV at least twice: Cleveland and McKinley in the Gilded Age, and Clinton and Obama in the current age.

-in both periods, there was one "dynasty win", where a relative of a former President won election: Harrison in 1888 and Bush 43 in 2000/2004.

In other words, both periods have demonstrated a time of very polarized politics.

In 1904, Roosevelt broke the narrow-margin trend and won with almost +19. It was an absolute blowout in 1904, one of the most unsung massive landslides in our history.

So, regardless of which way 2016 goes, I suspect that 2016 will indeed be a +10 or more landslide in the NPV. If that doesn't happen, then a new statistical record would be set and we would have, for the first time ever, 8 presidential cycles in a row with an NPV margin under +10.

Looking from 1940 onwards, we saw, generally, a big landslide every 8 to 12 years.

In 2016, it will be 32 years since the last real NPV landslide win. I would say that it is about time.

And to be honest, I personally think that a massive landslide now and then, regardless who wins, is good for us, because it means an undeniable mandate for the person who wins. I also personally think that it will be the Democrat, but that's beyond the point. Were the Republican to win with a resounding landslide in 2016, I still think it would be good for us, for at least the one reason I just listed.

Discuss. Did you know about this historical fact concerning our elections? Do you think a landslide is on the way?

Please try to discuss like an adult...

Landslides often happen because the previous president was rubbish.

Obama, clear why he had a landslide, Reagan too.

Obama, however, isn't doing as badly as Carter or Bush were doing, not by a long way. I don't see a landslide unless it is for there being a bad candidate,

Just to be clear, I am only talking about NPV landslides. Obama technically did not win an NPV landslide in 2008, his margin being under +10. Just to be clear. Neither did Bush 41 in 1988, his margin being just slightly higher than Obama's from 2008.

 

[jillian]

Still over a year away and people talking about landslides sheesh.

agreed. but he's simply reviewing history. i don't think he's saying it has definitive predictive value. it is simply an interesting circumstance to consider at this point.

Correct, and in fact, I wrote this:

So, regardless of which way 2016 goes, I suspect that 2016 will indeed be a +10 or more landslide in the NPV. If that doesn't happen, then a new statistical record would be set and we would have, for the first time ever, 8 presidential cycles in a row with an NPV margin under +10.

Looking from 1940 onwards, we saw, generally, a big landslide every 8 to 12 years.

In 2016, it will be 32 years since the last real NPV landslide win. I would say that it is about time.

And to be honest, I personally think that a massive landslide now and then, regardless who wins, is good for us, because it means an undeniable mandate for the person who wins. I also personally think that it will be the Democrat, but that's beyond the point. Were the Republican to win with a resounding landslide in 2016, I still think it would be good for us, for at least the one reason I just listed.

Of course, the pre-requisite for this is that people must actually read the material before frothing at the mouth.

you expect much of the loons.

 

[jillian]

It's always good for a laugh when a German national, possible jobless former East German Stasi, presumes to lecture Americans on American politics.

Hoping for a new job?

Who in the world are you talking about?

Are you insane, or just drunk out of your skull? Skull-fucked, perhaps?

his mental illness runs deep. but the wacko really should be careful of the accusations he throws out. i mean, we know he isn't very bright, but that's a bit much even for him.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary inaugurated and sentenced on the same day?

 

[jillian]

Hillary inaugurated and sentenced on the same day?

no. but whatever.

clinton derangement syndrome is almost as amusing as obama derangement syndrome. *shrug*

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hillary inaugurated and sentenced on the same day?

no. but whatever.

clinton derangement syndrome is almost as amusing as obama derangement syndrome. *shrug*

Weren't the first signs of this derangement first identified in the 1990's and caused by too much crotch sniffing at the time?

That addiction became an epidemic in 2008 and there is no known cure.

 

[jillian]

Hillary inaugurated and sentenced on the same day?

no. but whatever.

clinton derangement syndrome is almost as amusing as obama derangement syndrome. *shrug*

Weren't the first signs of this derangement first identified in the 1990's and caused by too much crotch sniffing at the time?

That addiction became an epidemic in 2008 and there is no known cure.

well, i can't speak to the cause except that the right was so amazed that daddy bush lost to a self-made guy from arkansas instead of one of their monied heirs that they've been in free-fall ever since.

 

[Auld Phart]

Hillary inaugurated and sentenced on the same day?

no. but whatever.

clinton derangement syndrome is almost as amusing as obama derangement syndrome. *shrug*

Weren't the first signs of this derangement first identified in the 1990's and caused by too much crotch sniffing at the time?

That addiction became an epidemic in 2008 and there is no known cure.

That addiction became an epidemic in 2008

It became an epidemic in 2000.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary inaugurated and sentenced on the same day?

no. but whatever.

clinton derangement syndrome is almost as amusing as obama derangement syndrome. *shrug*

A candidate under FBI Investigation by her own party...classic