An incumbent’s popularity reflects on his party’s designated successor.
Except when it doesn’t. (See Clinton/Gore and Eisenhower/Nixon.)
kbiel - 07:05am on 05/13/2008
This is from USAToday, and it is so inaccurate it’s probably MEANT to be put there by one of the most liberal news stations out there. Or, they’re idiots.
Hairy Polemic, I think you’re right in this case--these elections are all about the successor and the administration of the last 8 years to most common American People. They don’t want another Bush, they don’t want another Republican, so they’ll settle for Barack.
“The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter”
~Churchill.
dirl126 - 08:05am on 05/13/2008
Except when it doesn’t. (See Clinton/Gore and Eisenhower/Nixon.)
I wrote “reflects on,” you read “decides the election.” One of us has a loose grasp on logic.
Hairy Polemic - 08:05am on 05/13/2008
Hairy,
OK, so what positive attributes did the American public transfer from Clinton to Gore? And before you say, “well half of the voters voted for him,” remember that almost as many voted for Kerry in 2004. In fact, I don’t remember any stories about how Gore would continue the Clinton legacy. To the contrary, I do remember a few stories about how the two were completely different. (Of course, this is all anecdotal, so it’s as suspect as your truism.)
And really, do I need to explain in detail how Ike’s positive glow never penetrated the shadows of doubt around Nixon’s sweaty brow?
Beyond that, election outcomes are the only real measure of whether the previous administration set the stage for the next. And I wasn’t claiming that your truism was never true. How else can one explain how George H.W. Bush got elected other than to say that people thought he would continue Reagan’s policies (the theme of his campaign)? And Ford’s loss was brought on at least in part because there wasn’t enough distance between Nixon’s resignation and Ford’s re-election campaign.
kbiel - 09:05am on 05/13/2008
McCain isn’t even close to Bush. rbb, showing us a picture with both of them in it doesn’t change that fact.
By your logic this picture shows that President Bush and Speaker Pelosi are one and the same. More liberal logic for the masses.
dougee - 09:05am on 05/13/2008
McCain isn’t even close to Bush.
realitybasedbob - 09:05am on 05/13/2008
RBB, you seem to be implying that physical contact is how you catch political cooties. However, you can find gobs of pictures of all political parties with all other political parties. ergo, not true or all parties have become one.
Could you stop the stupidity of posting pictures that make you FEEL like you’ve made a scathing point?
FlyOnTheWall - 10:05am on 05/13/2008
Could you stop the stupidity of posting pictures that make you FEEL like you’ve made a scathing point?
Not likely; it’s his modus operandi.
robert108 - 10:05am on 05/13/2008
Could you stop the stupidity of posting pictures that make you FEEL like you’ve made a scathing point?
This cannot happen. Liberals play on peoples’ emotions to make them FEEl that the democrats are trying to do good things. An example of this was Nancy Pelosi bringing all the children to the podium with her when she became speaker.
dougee - 10:05am on 05/13/2008
Kbiel,
And I wasn’t claiming that your truism was never true…
So you gave me two examples that distinguish my “truism” and then gave me two examples that support it. How about, instead, we turn to real emperical analysis and call my truism a theory that would take a bit more than your two contrary examples to dispute. Considering that “my” truism-theory accounts for more variables than mere post-facto election results, you may have to do a little more than show that it didn’t predict two elections to dispute it.
If you follow the above link, you’ll find an abstract that discusses how incumbent popularity is one of the major variables in every election forecast model. Well what do you know, it’s not just “my” theory, it seems to be “a” political science theory. And if newspapers rely on it to decide the newsworthiness of their stories, they are, at the very least, acting reasonably. (Bolded to remind you that this was the initial point of our dicussion.)
Except when it doesn’t. (See Clinton/Gore and Eisenhower/Nixon.)
This is from USAToday, and it is so inaccurate it’s probably MEANT to be put there by one of the most liberal news stations out there. Or, they’re idiots.
Hairy Polemic, I think you’re right in this case--these elections are all about the successor and the administration of the last 8 years to most common American People. They don’t want another Bush, they don’t want another Republican, so they’ll settle for Barack.
“The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter”
~Churchill.
I wrote “reflects on,” you read “decides the election.” One of us has a loose grasp on logic.
Hairy,
OK, so what positive attributes did the American public transfer from Clinton to Gore? And before you say, “well half of the voters voted for him,” remember that almost as many voted for Kerry in 2004. In fact, I don’t remember any stories about how Gore would continue the Clinton legacy. To the contrary, I do remember a few stories about how the two were completely different. (Of course, this is all anecdotal, so it’s as suspect as your truism.)
And really, do I need to explain in detail how Ike’s positive glow never penetrated the shadows of doubt around Nixon’s sweaty brow?
Beyond that, election outcomes are the only real measure of whether the previous administration set the stage for the next. And I wasn’t claiming that your truism was never true. How else can one explain how George H.W. Bush got elected other than to say that people thought he would continue Reagan’s policies (the theme of his campaign)? And Ford’s loss was brought on at least in part because there wasn’t enough distance between Nixon’s resignation and Ford’s re-election campaign.
McCain isn’t even close to Bush. rbb, showing us a picture with both of them in it doesn’t change that fact.
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/071a50F72DbPd/610x.jpg
By your logic this picture shows that President Bush and Speaker Pelosi are one and the same. More liberal logic for the masses.
RBB, you seem to be implying that physical contact is how you catch political cooties. However, you can find gobs of pictures of all political parties with all other political parties. ergo, not true or all parties have become one.
Could you stop the stupidity of posting pictures that make you FEEL like you’ve made a scathing point?
Not likely; it’s his modus operandi.
This cannot happen. Liberals play on peoples’ emotions to make them FEEl that the democrats are trying to do good things. An example of this was Nancy Pelosi bringing all the children to the podium with her when she became speaker.
Kbiel,
So you gave me two examples that distinguish my “truism” and then gave me two examples that support it. How about, instead, we turn to real emperical analysis and call my truism a theory that would take a bit more than your two contrary examples to dispute. Considering that “my” truism-theory accounts for more variables than mere post-facto election results, you may have to do a little more than show that it didn’t predict two elections to dispute it.
If you follow the above link, you’ll find an abstract that discusses how incumbent popularity is one of the major variables in every election forecast model. Well what do you know, it’s not just “my” theory, it seems to be “a” political science theory. And if newspapers rely on it to decide the newsworthiness of their stories, they are, at the very least, acting reasonably. (Bolded to remind you that this was the initial point of our dicussion.)