It isn't that the Democrats will blow it. It is just that after eight years of Obama it was the Republicans' turn.
 |
| Warning. It could happen. |
They get eight years.
WARNING TO READERS: My Democratic readers won't like this post.
Guest Post writer Thad Guyer reports on some historical "rules." He writes that American voters see-saw back and forth between Democratic and Republican presidents. Trump is slated--fated maybe--to win re-election, no matter whom Democrats nominate. The rules he cites are arranged to "fit" the data, so that it explains one-term presidents and can ignore the fact that voters gave Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman a long uninterrupted run, which is not predicted in a see-saw pendulum model.
Still, It is an intriguing bit of history, and one that should give Democrats pause.
The pendulum theory is not new, and it conforms to what this blog observed repeatedly during the 2016 campaign: that Hillary Clinton needed to have a change message, not a continuity establishment message. Voter had Clinton-fatigue, and they sought something new.
Aren't voters on the fast track to be sick and tired of Trump, making 2020 another change election?
Possibly, yes. History guides; it doesn't command. But presidents have the tools to make themselves look essential and make voters wary of changing horses midstream. We could be in the middle of a war or a negotiation with North Korea.
And remember that Trump's has a gift for opposition branding. By election day 2020 Trump, with help from Fox and social media trolls, a great many people will think the Democratic nominee is a dangerous fraud, utterly unworthy of the White House. Expect this.
Guyer is an attorney with an international practice, specializing in advocacy for whistleblowing employees. He has become accomplished in data-driven interpretation of the kinds of things that influence judges, hearings officers, and juries.
 |
| Guyer |
Guest Post by Thad Guyer
“Why We Aren’t to Blame if Trump Wins Reelection”
Historical data suggests that Trump almost certainly will be reelected, no matter what. Stanford University professor Jonathan Bendor’s “A Behavioral Theory of Elections” (Princeton Univ. Press 2011, https://goo.gl/dPsDKj) is just one in a growing body of scholarship applying the science of “behaviorism” to voting and electoral trends. Why do American voters so strongly favor incumbency and reelection, despite telling pollsters they want to “throw the bums out”? Studies show that it’s not just campaign finance, but sociology and psychology driving aversion to the risks of change, the aphorism “don’t change horses in midstream”.
Americans embrace a nice and steady eight-year pendulum swing of alternating two-term presidencies where one party follows the other turn for turn, eight years each. Our history since 1885 overwhelmingly favors Trump’s reelection because two term presidents of one party have always—100% of the time since then absent death, resignation or declining a second run-- been followed by two term presidents of the other party.
There are two historical empirical rules at play: (1) The only presidents who didn’t win a second term did not follow a two-term president from the other party; and (2) former vice presidents who buck historical trends and manage to win a first term as president never win a consecutive second term. Going back to 1885, only the following six presidents lost reelection, and none who had not been a vice president followed a two-term predecessor from the opposite party:
There are two historical empirical rules at play: (1) The only presidents who didn’t win a second term did not follow a two-term president from the other party; and (2) former vice presidents who buck historical trends and manage to win a first term as president never win a consecutive second term. Going back to 1885, only the following six presidents lost reelection, and none who had not been a vice president followed a two-term predecessor from the opposite party:
1. George H. W. Bush (R) succeeded a two-term president from his own party, Ronald Reagan (R). Rule (1) eight-year alternating pendulum and Rule (2) VP’s don’t win reelection both applied.
2. Jimmy Carter (D) succeeded Gerald Ford (R) rather a two-term president. Rule (1) applied.
3. Gerald Ford (R) was never elected in the first place, since his predecessor Richard Nixon (R) had resigned before completing two terms. Rules (1) and (2) applied.
4. Herbert Hoover (R) succeeded Calvin Coolidge (R), and Coolidge became president only because Warren Harding (R) died in office. Rule 1 applied.
5. William Taft (R) succeeded Teddy Roosevelt (R) of the same party. Rule 1 applied.
6. Benjamin Harrison (R) succeeded Grover Cleveland (D) after Cleveland had served only one term. Rule 1 applied.
Alternatively stated, these rules mandated that Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton would be defeated no matter what; and that if former VP Joe Biden is nominated, he will lose under both rules just like former VP Al Gore did no matter what.
When political parties lose elections they thought they would win (or were sure they would win as we were for Reagan’s reelection), they launch self-critical “lessons learned” and even self-loathing “political autopsies”. We should stay hopeful of breaking the historical mold, but we should decidedly avoid blaming ourselves and each other with should’ve or could’ve dones in preventing Trump’s reelection. We have enough strife among ourselves.
3 comments:
Harry Truman Fits, Not Defies, Rules (1) and (2) of Electoral Behaviorism
The electoral behaviorism I referenced in my guest post is based on actual voting behavior, the operative precedent being voters actually voting for a president for his first term, and then voting for or against his reelection to a second term. Harry Truman was elected president only once and was never reelected. He became president only because Franklin Roosevelt died in office. Truman announced he would run for a second term, but withdrew after losing the New Hampshire primary, perhaps because he didn't want to be reelected, perhaps not as historians debate. But what matters is that voters elected Harry Truman president exactly one time only. He is a vice president who was not reelected to a second term. Rules (1) and (2) both apply.
If Trump seeks and does not win reelection, he will be the only president defying Rule (1) since the 1800's. Let's hope voters break with the electoral behaviorism established in this century-old pattern. But let's not blame ourselves in history holds firm.
The biggest problem with Thad's argument, is that it relies on fuzzy logic. Incumbents win, unless they don't, and when they don't win, it is because of some tortuous explanation like this one: "The only presidents who didn’t win a second term did not follow a two-term president from the other party".
There have only been 58 Presidential elections in our history, with 44 different people holding the office. With the span we have between elections, the data quickly becomes useless just a few cycles later. Going back five Presidential elections cycles was the year 2000. About 20% of the people that voted in that election are dead.
The other factor with the relatively small amount of Presidential elections, is there will always be a "first". Donald Trump became the oldest first time President in history. He became the first non-politician to become President who wasn't a War hero, or a cabinet member previously.
There were stories galore about how President Obama couldn't possibly win re-election in 2012 due to the historically poor economy. No other President won re-election under those circumstances, until Obama won.
Trump also had his party get shredded in the mid-terms, and even the gerrymanders fell in many parts of the Country. His "branding" and campaign messaging of scary brown people are coming to America didn't work in 2018. He has shown no moderation since that election, and claims success because Republicans won a couple of deep red Senate seats.
Trump's master branding also led to him losing the popular vote by 3,000,000 votes. He was saved by FBI meddling and low turnout in heavy Dem areas in the midwest. Those people turned out in 2018, and are almost surely going to do the same in 2020.
"Past Performance Is Not Indicative Of Future Results"
While the examples you cite seem to indicate a pattern, it can also be said that each one had extenuating circumstances that made them unique and differentiating, for example, candidates personas. Parallel events with the campaigns matter also. Ms. Clinton lost due to campaign complacency and sloppy data management that drew the attention of the FBI, her mishandling of Benghazi while Sec. of State, and a miscreant husband, among other things. Several. Other. Things.
Republicans had a black swan event in Trump, whom I would argue is unique in history, and an example that civilization has not progressed past the point where old fashioned demagogues can still find traction using race baiting and extant fear tactics. America has an unsophisticated electorate with a significant minority easily seduced by illusions manufactured by unscrupulous elements of popular media. Lacking a Trump, the next likely Republican challenger would have been Jeb Bush or perhaps Chris Christie, and it should be noted that if they had won, Republicans would have held on to Congress in the recent mid terms. In other words, "s**t happens".
Saying this I do feel caution is warranted, with the hope that we are in an unprecedented political situation that can be remedied with a strong candidate with a unified Democratic Party behind them, a tall order at present.
Post a Comment