Did you know that in America parties always get at least eight years in the White House before they're voted out? Of course you do. Aside from Donald Trump, the only time it hasn't happened since 1900 is Jimmy Carter's presidency.
I know that things are kind of crazy these days, but this is still a predictive observation that has a lot of force behind it. If we can avoid a recession, it probably still does.
POSTSCRIPT: Election forecasts based on fundamentals aren't too useful this far out, but there are two that are already forecasting. Ray Fair's model gives Biden 51.03% of the popular vote. David Walker gives Biden 53.7% and 272 electoral votes.
And the time before that was
*checks notes*
...Grover Cleveland
Not quite as reassuring.
????
Two non-consecutive LOLs for that one.
????
Jimmy Carter thought that, too.....
The kids are bailing on Biden, and, irrational or not, their sympathy for the Palestinians extends to Hamas. When you see those "From the River to the Sea" banners, you are seeing eliminationists. There are a lot of them these days and they don't accept any "half-measures" on "anti-colonialism".
Yeah. I mean, far more climate change action than could ever be expected, student loan forgiveness, working for reproductive rights ... but has Biden actually fellated them? No? Then fuck Dems!
Which is so stupid. Do they think Donald, who moved the embassy to Jerusalem, is going to be more sympathetic to the Palestinians?
Michigan has a significant number of Arab Americans. In 2016 they largely voted for Trump because they viewed Hillary as too pro Israel. In 2020, after 4 years of Trump and Netanyahu making love with each other in public, they largely voted for Biden and it was a big part of putting Michigan back in the blue column.
Um. Even though I totally flunked memorizing all the presidents back in 5th grade, I know there were more than Carter and Trump since 1900. See also Taft, Hoover, Ford, Bush the elder.
Parties, not prezzes.
Well I don't know if Kevin is being facetious or has lost his mind on the *conclusion* of this post (past record of party control being predictive), but his slightly sneaky description is correct. All 3 of those *individuals* lost the presidency after less than 8 years, but their *party* had had the White House for 8+ years by then. Most recent and familiar example: When Bush Sr. lost, HE only got 4 years but the Republicans had had 12.
I share your lack of reassurance from Kevin's post, but please note that he specified "parties", not Presidents. Taft, Hoover, Ford, and Bush I -- and Truman and Johnson, for that matter, depending on how you count -- all followed Presidents of the same party for a total of at least 8 years.
(Edit: I see that a couple of posters have beaten me to this point while I was typing. So let me just emphasize: I share your lack of confidence in the predictive value that Kevin seems to suggest.)
No predictions are certain. All are based on probabilities. That said, if you find an indicator that can predict results, and actual results closely correlate with the predicted results, then you can say the indicator has predictive value.
History shows the "two terms per party" indicator is definitely a good (though not infallible) predictor.
Looking at post-WW2 elections, the two parties trade the presidency every 8 years with remarkable consistency. The current era looks like no other time in American presidential history. It may be that there's something about postwar politics or America's role in the world that led to the parties taking turns as they do. But more likely, the key event was the passage of the 22nd Amendment, limiting presidents to two terms. In establishing a limit, the amendment tacitly created an expectation that a president's time in office would be 8 years, except where they screw up and voters choose to kick the bum out after 4.
Starting with the election of 1952, the first with 22A in effect, you could predict the winning party in every one of the next 18 elections and be right 16 times. 89%! That's a pretty strong track record.
It's better than most (all?) pollsters would do even with all the real-time data they crunch.
The info below shows the Predicted Winning Party and Actual Winning Party for 18 elections beginning in 1952. The 2024 and 2028 elections (#19 and #20) are yet to happen, but fwiw, the model predicts D wins in both.
! = 22nd Amendment (1951)
Predicted:
DDDDD ! RR DD RR DD RR DD RR DD RR [DD]
Actual:
DDDDD ! RR DD RR DR RR DD RR DD RD
0.............. ! 1.... 2.... 3... 4.... 5.... 6.... 7... 8.... 9..... 10
0 (1932-48) FDR/Truman (5)
1 (1952-56) Ike x2
2 (1960-64) JFK/LBJ
3 (1968-72) Nixon/Ford
4 (1976-80) Carter ... [oops] Reagan 1
5 (1984-88) Reagan 2/Bush
6 (1992-96) Clinton x2
7 (2000-04) GWB x 2
8 (2008-12) Obama x2
9 (2016-20) Trump ... [oops] Biden 1
10 (2024-28) TBD (Predicted: DD; e.g., Biden 2 / Dem)
Taft, a Republican, followed McKinley's election in 1896 and 1900, and Roosevelt's election in 1904. So his term was the thirteenth through sixteenth years of Republicans in the White House. Hoover followed fellow Republicans Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, so Republicans had the White House for 12 years, from 1921 to 1933. And left the country with 25% unemployment. Nixon and Ford had the White House for 8 years. Bush succeeded fellow Republican Reagan, so the Republicans had the White House for 12 consecutive years.
From Carter on we've had eight presidents. Three of them so far were one termers, and we don't know yet if it will be four out of eight. That doesn't sound very predictive to me. The year 1900 might as well be ancient history considering the changes in American politics since then. And Trump has already upset plenty of precedents.
The post was about parties, not presidents themselves.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I think he's cherry picking an observation to support a conclusion. Individual candidates determine election outcomes probably more than parties, so I believe my observation is more relevant. But if you pick the right time window and the right statistic, you can reach any conclusion you like. As Homer Simpson said, "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."
You don't think the party of the president doesn't reflect their priiorities and inclinatiobns? Um, okay.
Strike the doesn't and the 'b' of course.
So, if you pick from Carter to Trump you can get this math, but it's a bit of cherry picking.
Exactly. You can get any electoral prediction you like from past events, if you can choose the set of events.
Once again: https://xkcd.com/1122/
I remember in social studies being reassured that the popular vote winner hadn't lost the electoral vote in almost 100 years. Then it happened twice in less than 20 years. (And almost 3 times.) And when George HW Bush ran, no sitting VP had been elected President in 150 years.
I agree, the pendulum usually swings in 8-12 year spans, but I wouldn't count on it.
Well, yeah. But in the cases where the electoral vote outcome did not match the popular vote outcome, did it uniformly favor both major parties? I'd say that there is a certain asymmetry at work here ...
Anecdotal memory is inherently subjective, so it's all but impossible to be certain of anything I'm about to say; nevertheless,
am I imagining things, or does the media in general reserve a special loathing for Joe Biden?
I remember having a conversation with a friend at the beginning of 2020 (the start of the last presidential election cycle), and we both agreed how strange it was that Trump's low polling numbers received so little media coverage.
That article (from one of the mainstream outlets) was pretty certain trump was likely to be re-elected (then, of course, there was a pandemic, a summer of protest, etc ..)
With Biden, on the other hand, the negativity is so over the top that I'm genuinely beginning to wonder if I've ever seen anything like it. All we ever hear about is Biden's age and his low polling numbers.
And yet: the economy is in good shape (I believe inflation to be basically under control); unemployment is low; Biden has passed major legislation which is having an observably good impact; he has shown every sign not just of being up to the job of President but of being better at it than trump; we are helping to lead an international coalition against totalitarian aggression in Ukraine (and the optics could not be clearer there regarding who is in the wrong and who is in the right); and, as Kevin pointed out, Biden is an incumbent president and his party will only have held the White House for 4 years by the time of his reelection. All of this forms a powerful argument for a Biden/Harris 2024 victory.
And yet I'm not sure if the narrative could get any more negative without lapsing into self-parody. Why is this happening? a few guesses:
*The mainstream press never forgave Biden for withdrawing the USA from Afghanistan.
*A certain number of media staffers are of the young-ish and woke variety, and I can't even imagine everything they might think Biden is guilty of (promoting Palestinian genocide, practicing evil capitalism, being the wrong sex and the wrong race, and/or just demonstrating insufficient ideological purity).
*Even if or when the media staffers themselves aren't of the woke variety, there is still an entirely outsized influence from the far Left on media and media coverage (why have we seen, for example, so many articles focusing on the minority of Leftists who oppose Israel and so few articles about the majority of both Democrats and all Americans who support it?)
*Age-ism
*An inherent tilt favoring Republicans, possibly in response to the accusations that media is too Liberal (so they're overcompensating).
*Most reporters, perhaps, aren't really all that knowledgeable. And maybe they don't read much out of their own zones. And all they hear is a negative narrative about Biden, so maybe it really is all they know.
*But what about the editors? And publishers? They're determined to stress every negative angle they can (because they seem to believe that negativity sells), and that makes them happy to jump on and amplify the "Biden can't win" bandwagon.
But I'm sure there are other explanations. Any ideas?
The negativity towards Hillary Clinton was much greater, lasted a longer time, and was equally unjustified.
My favored hypothesis (which is no guarantee that it's correct) is that most major media is owned and managed by conservative Republicans, and journalists understand without being told what they need to do to get ahead in their careers.
Doesn’t explain why the old grey lady never misses a chance to shit all over Biden. Today’s NYT edition was particularly bad, a whole series of negative articles on Biden.
Paying subscribers.
There are far too many variables in play before the summer of 2024 hits. However, I do think it'll be Nicky Haley, not Trump, who is the nominee.
The majority of the candidates think they're contending for the alternate choice for MAGA. When Trump's convictions sink in, MAGA is going to sulk and stay home, upset that the GOP didn't do more to stop it all. The remaining voters will choose someone who hasn't gone all in on MAGA.
"I do think it'll be Nicky Haley, not Trump, who is the nominee."
I also wonder if Haley might in fact be a more serious challenge for Biden.
I wrote a long response in this thread regarding the extent to which the current media/online narrative underestimates Biden.
An equally long, if not longer, commentary could be written on the extent to which the media inexplicably continues to overestimate trump.
Keep in mind that trump has quite literally never won the vote in his political career. He and/or his party lost the popular vote in 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021 (off year elections), and, of course, 2022 (a year that was relentlessly and falsely hyped as an oncoming "red wave").
But, unlike trump, Haley actually appears to be intelligent (relatively speaking), eloquent (so far as that goes for a politician), successful (she has actually won the vote in, at least, state wide elections), and, it should probably be noted, young. Of course, she's also female (which could in theory lure some votes from Democrats), and a member of a minority group. Perhaps that could turn off some MAGA republicans, but it could also attract other minorities into the Republican fold.
Based on my admittedly limited exposure to Haley, I would start worrying about Biden in 2024 a lot more than I am now if she became the nominee ...
However, I do think it'll be Nicky Haley, not Trump, who is the nominee.
Really? What do you base this on? Mind you I'd be delighted if Trump were sent packing, but I think he's got at least an 85% chance at the nomination. I don't see any way Trump is behind bars before the RNC (nor before the general election, if it comes to that). A mere "conviction" isn't going to be fatal in the Republican primary. And the anti-Trump coalition is failing to consolidate behind a candidate. DeSantis's campaign is moribund, but he won't withdraw until well after NH, I predict (he's certainly not interested in helping Nikki Haley).
That is what needs to happen: the field needs to become Trump vs. a single candidate. And there's not much sign of that at this point, what, ten weeks before Iowa?
(PS—When I say "delighted" I mean just that: although I believe Haley would be a stronger performer against Joe Biden than Trump, I don't want the latter anywhere near the launch codes. The reality is we simply don't know what 2024 holds, and it's very far indeed from an impossibility that the GOP nominee—no matter who he or she is—could prevail. I disagree with Nikki Haley on just about every issue. But I don't think she's an amoral, grifting, treasonous, authoritarian lunatic like Donald Trump.)
This Jennifer Rubin column gets it just about right, I'd say: Haley has a shot, but it's a long shot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/02/nikki-haley-gop-primary-long-shot-desantis/
When the Trump convictions sink in, the Trump cult will do what cults do, they will conjure explanations that exonerate him; they will double down on the crazy conspiracy theories, deep-state paranoia -- whatever it takes to hold to the faith. Cognitive dissonance resolved. And they will continue to give their votes to the object of their worship.
When the Trump convictions sink in, the Trump cult will do what cults do
And convictions are largely irrelevant in terms of the timing of the primaries. In the case in NY, Trump faces mere fines. In the documents case, Trump clearly has a friendly judge who is very unlikely to push matters along in an expeditious manner. In the federal insurrection case, the trial won't start until March at the earliest, by which time Trump is likely to be the presumptive nominee. And in the Georgia case, no trial date has yet been set.
Iowa is about ten weeks away.
I've long thought Trump would run out the clock on any charges against him, and I continue to believe that. Unless—miracle of miracles—Haley defeats him for the nomination or he passes away—it'll be up to the US electorate to save the Republic from this monster. Juries and judges aren't going to do it.
Trump faces more than fines in NY — he could be enjoined from operating any businesses in the state, meaning he would have to sell his signature property, Trump Tower, and others. I think his reaction would register on the Richter scale.
Trump faces more than fines in NY — he could be enjoined from operating any businesses in the state... I think his reaction would register on the Richter scale.
Yes, you're right (should've been more careful with my words). I was just referring to the fact that the current NY case is a civil, not criminal, matter. So he's not facing jail time. (Though if I'm not mistaken there's a hush money case out there waiting in the wings, too).
And I agree: he'll blow a gasket if he's stripped of business licenses. Still, I don't see a civil case going against him much of an impediment to the GOP nomination.
Did you know that in America parties always get at least eight years in the White House before they're voted out? Of course you do. Aside from Donald Trump, the only time it hasn't happened since 1900 is Jimmy Carter's presidency.
Why would you use the term "always" in the first sentence? Two times since the mid 1970s it hasn't happened. "Usually" is a much better term here.
I agree, as it happens, that Biden will very likely win if we avoid recession in 2024.
.. or a health event.
Trump's more likely to suffer an event than Joe.
This reminds of the time RGB said she did not need to retire because Dems always win elections. That did not turn out so well. I would not generalize too much the historical record because each election is sui generis. My only prediction this far off is that it will be a close election.
When did RGB say that she did not need to retire "because Dems always win elections"? An argument can be made that it would've been wise for her to retire earlier, but such things are always crystal clear in retrospect. And I don't remember anyone ever asserting that Dems always win elections. That just doesn't sound like the kind of thing any intelligent or well-informed person would say ...
Lest we forget - Hillary Clinton was going to win Florida: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/hillary-clinton-way-ahead-florida/
...
So, two Yogi Berra-isms:
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.
It ain't over 'til its over.
Yeah, Donald Trump was such a POS that he was voted out after just 4 years. And Carter was the unlucky president during the oil price recessions.
So next year we are going to pit a recession against a POS just to see which is more significant in the minds of voters.
Pingback: 2 terms except when you dont get 2 terms | Zingy Skyway Lunch
Have you ever heard of the law of small numbers?
1896-1912
1912-1920
1920-1932
1932-1952
1952-1960
1960-1968
1968-1976
1980-1992
1992-2000
2000-2008
2008-2016
11 times for 8 or more years
1976-1980
2016-2020
2 times it wasn't true
Also just 4 of the last 6 times
Starting in 1900 was convenient
You get 11 out of 13
Let's start with 1884
then you get 11 out of 16
If you ignore Andrew Johnson then you can start in 1860 and get 12 out of 17.
The predictive value is close to zero.
Because of the age of both leading candidates and near psychopathic behavior in other case neither of these candidates instill much confidence from me. Rather than voting FOR Biden my vote will be a vote against what’s his name. But in reality I’d prefer a contest with different hopefully younger candidates. I’m 82.