CoolBlue71
JUB Addict
When facing a scheduled United States presidential election, the question that I tend to ask is, "What is going on with the country and its people?"
In 2008, Republican president George W. Bush's job-approval percentage was in the 20s and 30 range. He never reached 40 percent after the midterm wave elections, in 2006, which delivered pickups of both houses of Congress to the opposition Democratic Party. On a November 2007 ABC News, host Charlie Gibson had a brief discussion with George Stephanopoulos who said, "The tide of history is against them [the Republicans]," furthermore offering that he had talked with congressional Republicans who said, "[2008] is theirs [Democrats] to lose."
In that election of 2008, the Democrats had approximately a 10-point shift of the U.S. Popular Vote, from the 2.46 percentage points by which a 2004 John Kerry had lost, and Barack Obama flipped the presidency with winning the U.S. Popular Vote by 7.26 percentage points along with—after John Kerry's 19 states plus District of Columbia and an electoral-vote score of 252/251 (faithless elector)—carriage of 28 states plus Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District (area of Omaha) and District of Columbia for 365 electoral votes.
Here in 2016, it would seem like the Republicans should win a pickup of the presidency due to the fact that a party trying to win a third consecutive election cycle—especially after the second consecutive one won by a two-term president—historically tends to underperform. When Franklin Roosevelt won a third term in 1940, he underperformed his 1936 blowout (in which he won 46 of 48 states). 1944 was an underperformance as well of 1940. The only same-party, third consecutive win, following two terms won by one president, was in 1904 for Teddy Roosevelt who overperformed the 1900 re-election of William McKinley. Now, for another third cycle in which that winner overperformed the second-cycle results, one can look to 1928 and Herbert Hoover, who overperformed the 1924 full-term election of Calvin Coolidge. (Hoover didn't overperform Coolidge with the percentage margin in the U.S. Popular Vote. Hoover overperformed Coolidge with percentage of states carried.)
What is going on with 2016?
So far in these primaries, we have one party—the Republican Party—looking like their voters are saying "Fuck you!" to the insiders. In the other party—the Democratic Party—there is a divide on selecting a preferred candidate with regard for direction of the party and on some bold policies.
With that kind of display, one might think the perceived frontrunners—Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton—don't have strong advantages, for either party, with this year's general election; that they are both very unpopular with the voting electorate.
I think what breaks this open has one harkening back to past voting patterns.
According to the likes of Stuart Rothenberg of The Rothenberg Report and Larry Sabato from University of Virginia Center of Politics (Crystal Ball), the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate is in jeopardy as they are in position to potentially lose control to what could become a pickup for the Democrats.
In asking myself, here on March 20, 2016, which party will win the White House…that alone is enough to tell me the likely outcome will be a third consecutive presidential election won by the Democratic Party (and their nominee).
Since the 17th Amendment of the 1910s allowed for states' electorates to vote for their United States senators, there have been four elections in which one or both houses of Congress flipped party control in a presidential year: 1932, 1948, 1952, and 1980. In all cases, the party that won a pickup of the U.S. House and/or U.S. Senate was the one which also prevailed in the presidential contest. In 1932, the Democrats won pickups for both President (Franklin Roosevelt) and U.S. Senate. In 1948, the Democrats won a hold of the White House (Harry Truman) and pickups with both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In 1952, Republicans won pickups on all three counts including President (Dwight Eisenhower). In 1980, the Republicans won pickups for President (Ronald Reagan) and U.S. Senate.
Whether or not one agrees with such outcomes, there is a logic to this. It is against historical voting pattern to predict a 2016 Republican pickup of the presidency and a 2016 Democratic pickup of the U.S. Senate. For them to be in opposite-party columns, the result would be a status quo: President, for the Democrats; U.S. Senate, for the Republicans. So, here in 2016, and strictly between President and U.S. Senate, if one of them flips then we can expect the other one retains.
Public Policy Polling, earlier this month, reported that up to eight incumbent Republican-held U.S. Senate seats were vulnerable.
One thing that needs to be mentioned is this. There is a ninth state. It is Illinois. Republican Mark Kirk won a pickup of the U.S. Senate seat, in 2010, which was held by Barack Obama from his 2004 election and for the remaining two years after he was elected the 44th president of the United States on November 4, 2008. This is particularly important. That is because Illinois has not carried for Republican to win a seat in the U.S. Senate in a presidential year since Charles Percy won with Richard Nixon's 49-state re-election in 1972. 1980 [Alan Dixon], 1984 [Paul Simon, who unseated Percy], 1992 [Carol Mosley Braun, the only African-American woman in U.S. Senate history!], 1996 [the first term for Dick Durbin], 2004 [Barack Obama], and 2008 [the third term for Durbin] were Democratic wins; and those 1972 to 1988 election cycles in Illinois were with Republican presidential carriage of the state for Nixon, Gerald Ford (1976), Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984), and George Bush (1988).
The Democrats need to net five pickups of Republican-held seats to flip control of the U.S. Senate. If it happens for them, they're likely to prevail in Illinois, Wisconsin (same-party carriage, President/U.S. Senate, since 1976), "Blue Firewall" state Pennsylvania, Ohio (same-party carriage, President/U.S. Senate, since 1992), North Carolina (same-party carriage, President/U.S. Senate, since 1972), as well as New Hampshire and Florida. Iowa and Arizona would be tougher. But, that's seven states in good position, two more with an incredible wave, which would sufficiently deliver a majority-control pickup of the U.S. Senate should that be the 2016 will of the people if they favor the Democrats.
The point of all this is simple: A Republican pickup of the presidency should not include this potential of the party, which already has majority control of the U.S. Senate, potentially losing that upper chamber of Congress.
This is reason enough, if asking oneself which party will likely win for President here in 2016, why I would not predict the Republican Party to win a pickup. It is reason enough to predict a Democratic hold. And if that happens, it would be a third consecutive election cycle. If you look at realigning presidential elections—1800 (Democratic-Republican), 1828 (Democratic), 1860 (Republican), 1896 (Republican), 1932 (Democratic), 1968 (Republican)—the presidential minority party was never able to stop the presidential majority party from having an occurrence of winning three consecutive election cycles. The 1800–1824 Democratic Republican party won all seven cycles. The 1828–1856 Democratic Party won three consecutives (1828, 1832, 1836). The 1860–1892 Republican Party won six consecutive cycles (1860, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, 1880). The 1896–1928 Republican Party won four (1896, 1900, 1904, 1908) and three (1920, 1924, 1928) consecutive cycles. The 1932–1964 Democratic Party won all five cycles (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948) from their first two decades of dominance. The 1968–2004 Republican Party won the three consecutive cycles of the 1980s.
It is also worth noting that the Republican Party, currently with the controversies over Donald Trump as their frontrunner, may be a poised for a disastrous run here in 2016. If they end up with a convention that is "brokered"; if they end up with a convention which angers their self-identified Republican voters; one can also look to the past voting patterns of other 20th-century elections like 1912, 1964, and 1968. In each case, the party which was in turmoil ended up having lost. Decisively.
In 2008, Republican president George W. Bush's job-approval percentage was in the 20s and 30 range. He never reached 40 percent after the midterm wave elections, in 2006, which delivered pickups of both houses of Congress to the opposition Democratic Party. On a November 2007 ABC News, host Charlie Gibson had a brief discussion with George Stephanopoulos who said, "The tide of history is against them [the Republicans]," furthermore offering that he had talked with congressional Republicans who said, "[2008] is theirs [Democrats] to lose."
In that election of 2008, the Democrats had approximately a 10-point shift of the U.S. Popular Vote, from the 2.46 percentage points by which a 2004 John Kerry had lost, and Barack Obama flipped the presidency with winning the U.S. Popular Vote by 7.26 percentage points along with—after John Kerry's 19 states plus District of Columbia and an electoral-vote score of 252/251 (faithless elector)—carriage of 28 states plus Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District (area of Omaha) and District of Columbia for 365 electoral votes.
Here in 2016, it would seem like the Republicans should win a pickup of the presidency due to the fact that a party trying to win a third consecutive election cycle—especially after the second consecutive one won by a two-term president—historically tends to underperform. When Franklin Roosevelt won a third term in 1940, he underperformed his 1936 blowout (in which he won 46 of 48 states). 1944 was an underperformance as well of 1940. The only same-party, third consecutive win, following two terms won by one president, was in 1904 for Teddy Roosevelt who overperformed the 1900 re-election of William McKinley. Now, for another third cycle in which that winner overperformed the second-cycle results, one can look to 1928 and Herbert Hoover, who overperformed the 1924 full-term election of Calvin Coolidge. (Hoover didn't overperform Coolidge with the percentage margin in the U.S. Popular Vote. Hoover overperformed Coolidge with percentage of states carried.)
What is going on with 2016?
So far in these primaries, we have one party—the Republican Party—looking like their voters are saying "Fuck you!" to the insiders. In the other party—the Democratic Party—there is a divide on selecting a preferred candidate with regard for direction of the party and on some bold policies.
With that kind of display, one might think the perceived frontrunners—Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton—don't have strong advantages, for either party, with this year's general election; that they are both very unpopular with the voting electorate.
I think what breaks this open has one harkening back to past voting patterns.
According to the likes of Stuart Rothenberg of The Rothenberg Report and Larry Sabato from University of Virginia Center of Politics (Crystal Ball), the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate is in jeopardy as they are in position to potentially lose control to what could become a pickup for the Democrats.
In asking myself, here on March 20, 2016, which party will win the White House…that alone is enough to tell me the likely outcome will be a third consecutive presidential election won by the Democratic Party (and their nominee).
Since the 17th Amendment of the 1910s allowed for states' electorates to vote for their United States senators, there have been four elections in which one or both houses of Congress flipped party control in a presidential year: 1932, 1948, 1952, and 1980. In all cases, the party that won a pickup of the U.S. House and/or U.S. Senate was the one which also prevailed in the presidential contest. In 1932, the Democrats won pickups for both President (Franklin Roosevelt) and U.S. Senate. In 1948, the Democrats won a hold of the White House (Harry Truman) and pickups with both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In 1952, Republicans won pickups on all three counts including President (Dwight Eisenhower). In 1980, the Republicans won pickups for President (Ronald Reagan) and U.S. Senate.
Whether or not one agrees with such outcomes, there is a logic to this. It is against historical voting pattern to predict a 2016 Republican pickup of the presidency and a 2016 Democratic pickup of the U.S. Senate. For them to be in opposite-party columns, the result would be a status quo: President, for the Democrats; U.S. Senate, for the Republicans. So, here in 2016, and strictly between President and U.S. Senate, if one of them flips then we can expect the other one retains.
Public Policy Polling, earlier this month, reported that up to eight incumbent Republican-held U.S. Senate seats were vulnerable.
One thing that needs to be mentioned is this. There is a ninth state. It is Illinois. Republican Mark Kirk won a pickup of the U.S. Senate seat, in 2010, which was held by Barack Obama from his 2004 election and for the remaining two years after he was elected the 44th president of the United States on November 4, 2008. This is particularly important. That is because Illinois has not carried for Republican to win a seat in the U.S. Senate in a presidential year since Charles Percy won with Richard Nixon's 49-state re-election in 1972. 1980 [Alan Dixon], 1984 [Paul Simon, who unseated Percy], 1992 [Carol Mosley Braun, the only African-American woman in U.S. Senate history!], 1996 [the first term for Dick Durbin], 2004 [Barack Obama], and 2008 [the third term for Durbin] were Democratic wins; and those 1972 to 1988 election cycles in Illinois were with Republican presidential carriage of the state for Nixon, Gerald Ford (1976), Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984), and George Bush (1988).
The Democrats need to net five pickups of Republican-held seats to flip control of the U.S. Senate. If it happens for them, they're likely to prevail in Illinois, Wisconsin (same-party carriage, President/U.S. Senate, since 1976), "Blue Firewall" state Pennsylvania, Ohio (same-party carriage, President/U.S. Senate, since 1992), North Carolina (same-party carriage, President/U.S. Senate, since 1972), as well as New Hampshire and Florida. Iowa and Arizona would be tougher. But, that's seven states in good position, two more with an incredible wave, which would sufficiently deliver a majority-control pickup of the U.S. Senate should that be the 2016 will of the people if they favor the Democrats.
The point of all this is simple: A Republican pickup of the presidency should not include this potential of the party, which already has majority control of the U.S. Senate, potentially losing that upper chamber of Congress.
This is reason enough, if asking oneself which party will likely win for President here in 2016, why I would not predict the Republican Party to win a pickup. It is reason enough to predict a Democratic hold. And if that happens, it would be a third consecutive election cycle. If you look at realigning presidential elections—1800 (Democratic-Republican), 1828 (Democratic), 1860 (Republican), 1896 (Republican), 1932 (Democratic), 1968 (Republican)—the presidential minority party was never able to stop the presidential majority party from having an occurrence of winning three consecutive election cycles. The 1800–1824 Democratic Republican party won all seven cycles. The 1828–1856 Democratic Party won three consecutives (1828, 1832, 1836). The 1860–1892 Republican Party won six consecutive cycles (1860, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, 1880). The 1896–1928 Republican Party won four (1896, 1900, 1904, 1908) and three (1920, 1924, 1928) consecutive cycles. The 1932–1964 Democratic Party won all five cycles (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948) from their first two decades of dominance. The 1968–2004 Republican Party won the three consecutive cycles of the 1980s.
It is also worth noting that the Republican Party, currently with the controversies over Donald Trump as their frontrunner, may be a poised for a disastrous run here in 2016. If they end up with a convention that is "brokered"; if they end up with a convention which angers their self-identified Republican voters; one can also look to the past voting patterns of other 20th-century elections like 1912, 1964, and 1968. In each case, the party which was in turmoil ended up having lost. Decisively.
