pacino wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Hillary is struggling with quite possibly the most unpopular politician in American history. I'm not sure how you can say she would most likely win against another candidate in 2020.

because she would've already won. incumbent politicians tend to win.

the only reason GHWB lost was because a third party idiot was involved. The Democrats got very lucky that election.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:In the Marist polls in Ohio and PA today zero (0) black respondents said they were voting for Trump.

conversely 80% of white voters who identify as "evangelical" say they are voting for that individual.

Can someone explain to me what this "evangelical" business has to do with anything remotely resembling religion? Because the way it looks to me, by casting those votes, those people are going straight to hell

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

pacino wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Hillary is struggling with quite possibly the most unpopular politician in American history. I'm not sure how you can say she would most likely win against another candidate in 2020.

because she would've already won. incumbent politicians tend to win.

the only reason GHWB lost was because a third party idiot was involved. The Democrats got very lucky that election.

fallacy

Perot voters evenly split the vote between Clinton and Bush

Let’s start with the basics. Clinton was elected with 43% of the vote, to Bush’s 37.5%, a difference of nearly six million votes. To overtake Clinton in a two-way race, then, Bush would have needed to gain the lion’s share of the Perot vote, about two-thirds of it. But in the exit poll conducted on Election Day, just 38% of Perot’s backers said Bush was their second choice. Thirty-eight percent also said Clinton was. “The impact of Mr. Perot’s supporters on the campaign’s outcome,” wrote The New York Times, “appears to have been minimal.” The Washington Post’s conclusion: “Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election.”

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:welp

the fears of letting transgender people use the bathroom of their choice will lead to problems now has an example to champion

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/davidm ... -in-target

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:welp

the fears of letting transgender people use the bathroom of their choice will lead to problems now has an example to champion

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/davidm ... -in-target

pacino wrote:Guess I got that wrong. I still think the incumbent has a big advantage.

Bucky wrote:PRO TIP: don't pull your phone out in situations such as those

Four more years? It’s not as common as you might think. Since 1825, more than two-thirds of U.S. presidents never achieved reelection. What can Obama learn from his predecessors?

slugsrbad wrote:

pacino wrote:Guess I got that wrong. I still think the incumbent has a big advantage.

List of incumbents who have lost*:
1. John Adams (1800)
2. John Quincy Adams (1828)
3. Martin Van Buren (1840)
4. Grover Cleveland (1888)
5. Benjamin Harrison (1892)
6. Herbert Hoover (1932)
7. Jimmy Carter (1980)
8. George H.W. Bush (1992)

*This only includes incumbents who ran and lost while a sitting president. It does not include, for example, Teddy's Bull Moose candidacy.

There have been 57 presidential elections, so the incumbent wins approximately 86% of the time. As JH mentioned earlier there typically is not a part stranglehold on the Presidency, so even if Hillary wins in 2016, the 2020 incumbency advantage may be negated by Democratic fatigue.