Here
and
Now

opinions

Two simple reasons a Republican will likely win in 2016

72 Comments

Elections are not mysterious events subject to the whimsy of unpredictable candidates and voters. They're actually highly predictable, with a set of variables that influence outcomes in familiar ways.

Because of that, we can say, with reasonable confidence, that a Republican will be moving into the White House in 2017.

That conclusion is based on the results of a data model we created, and is primarily the result of two factors, both related to the challenges faced by "successor" candidates - candidates from the same party as the incumbent. First, a Republican will win because voters typically shy away from the party currently in power when an incumbent isn't running. In fact, a successor candidate is three times less likely to win. Second, President Barack Obama's approval ratings are too low to suggest a successor candidate will take the White House.

Why are we so confident, especially when opinion poll data now gives Hillary Clinton the edge over most Republican opponents? The simple answer is that we're relying on models, not polls.

At this point in the election cycle, poll data asking the "horserace" question ("Who will you vote for in November 2016?") can be very misleading. This far from Election Day, published poll data is off by an average of 8 percentage points compared with the true election outcome. That's an enormous number when we're used to elections where candidates win by two to three points.

Modeling results is a simple concept: look at past data, identify patterns, and use those patterns to make predictions. So we begin by aggregating data from past U.S. presidential elections, but are immediately hampered by the fact that there aren't very many elections to work from - 25 if we go back 100 years.

So we created a much larger database of elections by looking beyond the United States to hundreds of presidential and parliamentary elections in democratic countries around the world. This exercise gave us far more data to work with: a sample size of more than 450 elections from 35 countries.

The most important finding from our model is the power of incumbency: if you already hold the office you seek, you are far more likely than not to retain it. Our model showed that incumbents have a threefold greater chance of beating their opponent. When no incumbent is running, successor candidates (in this case, Democrats) are three times less likely to win.

From our database of global elections we also learned about the importance of knowing where the public stands on the direction their country and leadership are going. Are they generally happy or unhappy with the government? There are a few ways to measure this, but the most universal (and therefore the one we use) is approval ratings of the sitting leader or president.

Our model proves the power of presidential approval ratings. It determines that in order for a successor candidate to have better than even chances of winning, the sitting president must have an approval rating of above 55 percent. Because Barack Obama's average approval rating is now at 45 percent, a successor candidate (i.e. Democrat) is unlikely to win.

Our model works on the basis of probabilities, and is focused at the party level rather than the candidate level. It seeks only to predict the likelihood of a change to the party in power. It has an 85 percent predictive ability, so it's right most - but not all - of the time. Things that could confound the model include rapid changes to Obama's approval rating, or unusually high or low turnout (which can be driven by "wild card" candidates or other factors).

In the coming months, Obama's approval ratings may tick up. But they would have to pass the 55 point mark to give the Democrats even odds of keeping the White House. This is extremely unlikely, given the fact that presidential approval typically declines over time, and Obama's ratings are no exception.

Some will argue that Hillary Clinton is special; that her chances are significantly better because, given her popularity and status as a "legacy" candidate, she seems more like an incumbent. But if we go along with that hypothesis and run it through our model, at Obama's current approval ratings, Clinton's chances of winning the general election are still less than half.

The Democrats have quite a mountain to summit to retain power past 2016.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

72 Comments
Login to comment

Scary. Donald Trump as POTUS. I'd feel safer with Donald Duck.

10 ( +17 / -7 )

Wow, who would have thought that JT would get involved in partisan hackery.

11 ( +18 / -7 )

This is snake oil.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

What the model fails to take into account is that the Republicans running are all idiots. I expect Americans will take this into account when they vote. Of course, it is all kind of irrelevant because Americans do not actually elect the president. The Electoral College does.

9 ( +17 / -8 )

There are literally countless factors involved, but yeah, let's just look at three or four and call it a day... The whole model is garbage.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Wow, who would have thought that JT would get involved in partisan hackery.

JT has gone right wing now which means they are pro LPD, which means pro Republican, as the 2 groups are very close. That's why.

And BEFORE the moderators remove this with the LAME excuse as being "off topic" let me remind THEM that this is supposed to be Japan Today, not USA Today, and that this whole entry is off topic and is also inappropriate meddling in US affairs and elections.

Moderator: Once again, we ask you to please lift the level of your contributions, and post something pertinent to the topic.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The authors from Ipsos have a clear pedigree. Ipsos has been offering political research solutions to governments, corporations, NGOs and the public for the last 30 years. Here, one assumes they are positioning an idea for their client, whoever that unamed sponsor is, and they very likely are using this sort of progaganda to support their goal of consolidating power for the wealthiest. Anyone can buy an opionion.

As others have clearly seen, and stated here, the Ipsos authors aren't looking at specific behaviours of the Shia-Tea GOP wars and financial corruptions. These may still play a role in the American's disgust with a party that has sent thousands to their deaths based on lies, continues to champion racism, promotes religious wars, ignores scientific facts and expresses a chilling hatred for the ordinary citizen's need for basic health care.

But, Ipsos may be right, maybe Americans should embrase racism, wars based on lies, ignore environmental destruction and eliminate healthcare. Obviously most the Shia-Tea GOP has done just this for the past three decades.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

What the model fails to take into account is that the Republicans running are all idiots.

How insightful that observation is. And completely objective, no doubt. But I'd rather go with the algorithm, thanks. But then I'm too stupid to be a Democrat.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

I would be interested to know what their data set was for the non-US elections that they used for their models, and how they possibly believed that this would be in any way an accurate representation of elections in the US

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Has JT now become the mouthpiece for the republican party as well as the LDP in Japan?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I'm too stupid to be a Democrat."

Not stupid requires the one is neither a permanent Democrat nor Repbublican. A person who supports an idiot just because that idiot is a Democrat is being stupid. Similarly, a person who supports an idiot who is a Republican for no better reason than he is a Republican is also being stupid. People who are not stupid think.

I suggest all Americans should try to think.

Let's consider why Americans voted for Obama. Some would have voted for him because he was black, but I suspect more would have voted against him because of that. Many would have voted for him because he was a Democrat, but again many would have voted against him because of that. I think the deciding factor was those who needed to think before they decided how to vote really he was so much more intelligent and less dangerous than his predecessor. They needed change, change from the finacial and political disaster the Bush government had been.

Americans should ask whether they want to keep on track or return to another Bush disaster, or maybe a disaster that would Trump even a Bush disaster.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Does their data model outperform the bookmakers? Will they put their money where their mouth is? Fortunes could be made.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Its an interesting point, but by focusing just on that one factor (successor to an incumbent) it ignores the massive number of other factors at play in any given election, including those related to the other party which, as has been pointed out by others, isn`t exactly fielding any electable candidates at this point.

What would be much more useful would be a model that incorporated multiple variables rather than just one. I suspect that would probably reduce the odds significantly.

This one seems to just highlight a spurious correlation rather than being usefully predictable if you consider recent elections.

Bush Senior, for example, won as the successor to an incumbent in 1988. Al Gore, despite losing the electoral vote did actually get more of the popular vote than Bush Jr. in 2000 while running as successor to an incumbent. Actually, you have to look all the way back to 1976 to find an instance when a successor to an incumbent (Gerald Ford/ Richard Nixon) decisively lost an election and there were obviously extenuating circumstances (Watergate aftermath) at play then.

Outside of that, in the entire history of presidential elections since WW2 you only have 2 (1960 and 1968) where this may have been a factor.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

It's probably true that the simplest algorithm is best, but no algorithm, no quant, can predict a 'black swan'. (Nassim Taleb)

Given what's going on in the world, and though I know black swans can't be predicted, circumstances are definitely ripe for one, bringing all forecasting into question. But it's still fun to do.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Excellent

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

As long as its not Hilary it doesn't matter.

-8 ( +2 / -11 )

Better Hillary than any of the republicans. But better Bernie than Hillary.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

They tried that in the UK general election earlier this year - exit polls, ordinary polls and voting models... and they all got it wrong.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Americans voted for Bush, so it's not beyond them to vote in someone like Trump. I can't wait to see the Trump/Clinton debates.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Americans voted for Bush, so it's not beyond them to vote in someone like Trump.

I do have to agree, you can never underestimate the stupidity of the American voters.

But that said, I still don't see Trump ending up as the republican representative. Once the circus starts getting whittled down, I think you'll see the votes go to other candidates. He has around 30% support, but I don't see that increasing as the numbers get whittled down - I think anyone who is going to support him already is.

4 ( +7 / -2 )

With several of the current republican themes lately its a pretty frightening prospect, the most powerful country in the world turning into a theocracy. No thanks. If for that alone, despite not agreeing with the general economic ideals of most "new" republicans, I really hope this story is off the mark.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I suggest all Americans should try to think.

As long as they think like you, right? Sorry if I sound dubious, but you paint Obama far better than he deserves and tar all 8 or 9 Republican candidates as idiots. That's not an objective assessment of intelligence, it's a presentation of bias masquerading as "thought."

Certainly I have my biases, we all do. But at least we should try to avoid simply saying that those who disagree with us are idiots. And, as an aside, it's much easier to think you are thinking when everyone around you agrees with you. It's nice to get lots of upvotes on comments, but that doesn't make them right... or wrong.

0 ( +4 / -5 )

Sorry, but this model doesn't take into account that the current Republican candidates are all buffoons. If someone even slightly respectable were running with some decent ideas then I would say they have a SLIGHT chance of winning. There are other major factors the model does not take into account -- firsts. Clinton would be the first female POTUS, and like it or not a lot of people would vote for her simply because she is a female (for better or worse, and I don't think that is a good reason by itself), especially in this day and age when the GOP is STILL insisting that women are not as good as men and threatening women's health for personal and outdated reasons.

There are other factors the model does not take into account that will have a large impact this time around, but it doesn't really matter. The only 'contestant' for the GOP circus that had a real chance was Bush, but he made the mistake of trying to go head to head with Trump and, combined with his major gaffes (runs in the family!), contradictions, and inability to formulate any plans as to how he'll keep his promises (his budget balancing numbers were hilarious!). His benefactors are all jumping ship.

Strangerland: "He has around 30% support, but I don't see that increasing as the numbers get whittled down - I think anyone who is going to support him already is."

I'm tempted to agree with the latter part, but there is a good chance that the crazies who are supporting others like the nutbag Carson could jump ship to an equally crazy Trump or vice-versa if he were to drop out. And the other thing is that while others MIGHT not support Trump later (they actually would if he won the nod, in an attempt simply to avoid a Dem as president again), he has a good chance of keeping the people he has now -- equally as scary.

As for the 'circus getting whittled down', people have been saying it already would have been months ago -- something Bush was, in fact, relying on to buoy up his numbers by now, and one reason why he's in trouble and has to go on the attack when he wanted to try and hang back and be neutral. There is no 'reasonable' candidate who is even close to being in the lead.

-3 ( +4 / -6 )

Sorry, Smith. I could just as easily paint the Dems as all buffoons. Easy to see people you disagree with as buffoons - it's a way to avoid addressing their ideas head on. Cruz is borderline genius, smarter than just about anyone on either side. I don't think he would be a good president, but calling him a buffoon is grade schoolyard debate level.

So far as reasonable candidates, their chances are disappearing as people slowly come out of their iPhone induced slumbers to realize that "reasonable" has made things pretty bad. The US is past that. Expect the unreasonable candidates to see greater success in the very near future - on either side of the aisle.

-2 ( +3 / -6 )

Trump can't lose the GOP nomination from here unless a major crime he committed is uncovered. That's the reality. Mitt Romney will still try his luck and will get a lot of support but the Trump circus is only going to get bigger.

Only Biden can beat Trump. Hilary can't beat Trump.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Only Biden can beat Trump.

You're foolish if you think Trump can beat anyone. Even if he by some miracle got the Republican nomination, the people would not vote for him.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I feel like this election is dramatically different from any I've seen in my lifetime. The headline grabbers and huge draws of this race are self-proclaimed "unpoliticians" who are considered the fringe of their respective parties. It's not Democrats and Republicans, it's Democrats and Republicans and Democratic Socialists and Tea Party members.

I'd be hesitant to call any winner, especially this early in the game. A Clinton-Rubio contest would look dramatically different from a Sanders-Trump contest, for example.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"President Barack Obama’s approval ratings are too low to suggest a successor candidate will take the White House."

How is this even possible?

And, really, what Republican could ever hope to beat whoever the Democratic nominee is, with California's 55 electoral votes, New York's 29 electoral votes and Florida's ( sorry Jeb, no dice ) 29 electoral votes locked up by the Democrats?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The fact is that there are very few contestable states in the USA any longer. Most states will go red or blue no matter who runs or who was in the office before. This article is basically worthless for too many reasons to outline now. The blue states will give the democrat, no matter who it is, a near victory right out of the box. California alone is 20% of what is needed to win the election. It is just math that is needed, not the hokum-pokum of the article. Hillary is already floating Julian Castro as her running mate, former mayor of San Antonio and currently an Obama cabinet member. If this pairing does happen, its game over. 16 years of Democratic WH control is in the offing, 8 with Hillary and then 8 more with Julian. That would be very good news for America and for the world since clearly republicans cannot even elect their own leader in House of Representatives.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

No Republican stands any chance whatsoever.

-2 ( +3 / -4 )

At least some women who might usually vote for the Republican candidate are going to switch and vote for Hillary if she's the only woman in the general presidential election. It could be a large number of women. I know of at least 1 :).

electoral-vote.com has not started its polling maps for this cycle, but they do have some news on funding, Carson's ahead:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2015/Pres/Maps/Oct16.html#item-1

News from the Votemaster

Candidates Announce Third Quarter Fundraising Totals

All of the Republican presidential candidates have now announced their Q3 fundraising totals as follows: Rank Candidate Q3 $

1 Ben Carson $20.8 million, 2 Jeb Bush $13.4 million, 3 Ted Cruz $12.4 million , 4 Carly Fiorina $6.8, million, 5 Marco Rubio $5.7 million, 6 John Kasich $4.4 million, 7 Chris Christie $4.2 million, 8 Donald Trump , 3.9 million, Rand Paul $2.5 million, 10 Mike Huckabee $1.2 million

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The prediction is pretty good. The bottom line is the Democrats have been ridiculously incompetent since they took control way back in 2006, 9 years of their failures and this last 18 months, it seems Obama is determined to either relegate the USA to a 3rd world has been, or start world war 3. Add in the only choices Democrats have are a not yet running many time loser to the office, a proud and self identifying Marxist or a proven corrupt politician who is more likely to be campaigning in front of judge and jury.

Basically the Republicans already won, they merely need to not screw up too badly, in the next year.

-1 ( +4 / -6 )

Basically the Republicans already won, they merely need to not screw up too badly, - comments

Meaning? Greeted as Liberators too Big to Fail who threaten Grandma's Meds, A Woman's Rights and press their Racism?

Smells like Victory!

Oh, and the Shia-Tea, lovely bunch of zealots. Hey, why should the Shia-Tea Gop worry about the Oval Office? They've been able to continue gun slaughter, enable Corporate Personhood and urge a return to AWOL Bush's Middle East disaster, forever. Americans seem to really, really like all those things. They're FUN!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

What the model fails to take into account is that the Republicans running are all idiots

The sad fact is that voters prefer their own party, no matter how buffoonish its manifestation, to the other party, particularly when the buffoonery is in a direction they're sympathetic to (racism, nativism, voodoo economics).

2 ( +3 / -1 )

16 years of Democratic WH control is in the offing, 8 with Hillary and then 8 more with Julian. That would be very good news for America and for the world since clearly republicans cannot even elect their own leader in House of Representatives.

That depends. Whether the GOP can find a leader or if they are divided has nothing to do with the candidate itself. The issues are the deciding and if history is any indication, usually people will get tired of a third term politician particularly if that politician is perceived as weak or the economy is in complete shambles, which it is.

No Republican stands any chance whatsoever.

Then you are not dealing with the political reality.

You're foolish if you think Trump can beat anyone. Even if he by some miracle got the Republican nomination, the people would not vote for him.

Perhaps, but Trump now has over 38% in Nevada which is Harry Reid's state to get that is very significant. Since Trump has been in the race and despite a lot of is insidious comments and underestimate his rise in the polls is avoiding the obvious truth. At this point it is too early to say people wouldn't vote for him and gaining in Nevada is proof of that. He's changing a lot of peoples perceptions, so we just have to wait and see.

Meaning? Greeted as Liberators too Big to Fail who threaten Grandma's Meds, A Woman's Rights and press their Racism?

The Mideast has worsened under Obama, make healthcare more affordable for everyone and strip a lot of the unnecessary provisions that are increasing the policies premiums...how many women does Obama have employed again? Oh, and when will the White House denounce and recall Al Sharpton's press pass?

Oh, and the Shia-Tea, lovely bunch of zealots. Hey, why should the Shia-Tea Gop worry about the Oval Office?

Maybe after almost 8 years of Totalitarian rule, they are just worried about the aftermath and want (not surprisingly, an end to progressive destructive rule)

They've been able to continue gun slaughter, enable Corporate Personhood and urge a return to AWOL Bush's Middle East disaster, forever.

So what has Obama done to battle ISIS over the last 4 years?

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

The sad fact is that voters prefer their own party, no matter how buffoonish its manifestation, to the other party, particularly when the buffoonery is in a direction they're sympathetic to (racism, nativism, voodoo economics).

That's true to a certain degree, but the more messed up a party gets, the more people they will lose. That's why a lot of life-long republicans voted for Obama. And you'll see more of that if they keep going on the path that they are. Not all voters are Bass.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Maybe after almost 8 years of Totalitarian rule comments

Is this another of those rubber chicken and glue exchanges? Really? What a big baby Rump cry baby. Golly, those kooky Shia-Tea. Always good for a chuckle. Those American blowhards. Can't get enough, of that funky stuff.

No, no, wait a tcik, it's always possible. A disaster could always turn into a strength. Like, say, the gop arsonist who blames the firefighter as incompetent? That old saw? Could happen.

Boy, looks like Rump's gonna ride to the White House on a bunch of jackasses.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

That's true to a certain degree, but the more messed up a party gets, the more people they will lose. That's why a lot of life-long republicans voted for Obama. And you'll see more of that if they keep going on the path that they are. Not all voters are Bass.

All I have to say is Good luck to that because Dems need EVERY prayer and hope they can get because as it looks, the odds are not exactly in their favor. But like Jessie Jackson said, keep hope alive.

Is this another of those rubber chicken and glue exchanges? Really? What a big baby Rump cry baby. Golly, those kooky Shia-Tea. Always good for a chuckle. Those American blowhards. Can't get enough, of that funky stuff.

Speaking of funk, I love funk music, but this is way beyond that.

Boy, looks like Rump's gonna ride to the White House on a bunch of jackasses.

Hey, if Obama could, why not Trump??

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

copyright: Boy, looks like Rump's gonna ride to the White House on a bunch of jackasses.

Cheers on the reminder. The devil is always in the detail. Rump's not a real "detail"-guy.

And who's the second Shia choice when Rump pulls the plug, takes a bow, and is still a Billionaire?

Still, never know. Maybe, being the most critically observed man in the world will suit Rump.

But, really? In any context but a tightly scripted set piece? Rump's a train wreck, everytime. Wake up.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

almost 8 years of Totalitarian rule

Another sharp-as-a-tack insight from the Washington Post's nimblest wordsmith. Tip: next time try the word 'Satanic'.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Cheers on the reminder. The devil is always in the detail. Rump's not a real "detail"-guy.

I completely agree, 7 years of having a president that didn't care about details and now a supposedly conservative loud mouth that wants to do the same for another 4 years in a socialist light "version."

And who's the second Shia choice when Rump pulls the plug, takes a bow, and is still a Billionaire?

Hillary?

But, really? In any context but a tightly scripted set piece? Rump's a train wreck, everytime. Wake up.

Hillary's life has been nothing but a script and by next week, I hope she'll be in goos shape to work on her next script detailing her how to properly lie this time.

Another sharp-as-a-tack insight from the Washington Post's nimblest wordsmith.

Flattery in this case will get you everything.

Tip: next time try the word 'Satanic'.

Thanks, I will surely keep that in mind.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Bass4funk: as usual, all facts pointed out about the Repubs meet only an "I'm rubber you're glue" schoolyard retort because you can't address the facts.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Chump aside, Republicans have some excellent candidates. I like Rand Paul, to seize control from the centralized Regulatory Nation Nanny State. Go, team!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

as usual, all facts pointed out about the Repubs meet only an "I'm rubber you're glue" schoolyard retort because you can't address the facts.

No, I can deal with the facts, you libs cant't and it just shows that when you libs come up with that statement it means you guys don't want to deal with neither the facts or reality, it's called: "selective liberal hypocrisy" you guys want to talk about how bad and flawed conservatives are and why and what makes them terrible, but you guys have a real deep, diluted problem when it comes to hearing bad things about the people on the Democratic side. Absolutely and hysterically, hilarious!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

it's called: "selective liberal hypocrisy" you guys want to talk about how bad and flawed conservatives are and why and what makes them terrible, but you guys have a real deep, diluted problem when it comes to hearing bad things about the people on the Democratic side. Absolutely and hysterically, hilarious!

Exactly. Take for example gun control. Libs always bash the nra. But, they dont wear the shoe when criminals, immigrants and minorities are responsible for gun related crimes. Worse, they rig the justice system (mostly blue States) so that plea bargains are achieved and reduced sentencing.

Only to which, when released back onto the streets, to commit another drive-by shooting.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

you guys want to talk about how bad and flawed conservatives are and why and what makes them terrible

It's not an issue of liberals against conservatives. It's about the current state of the Republican Party. And hysterical shriekers like bass4funk, who mistake Obama Derangement Syndrome with a coherent political philosophy.

You use 'liberal' as a pejorative. I haven't seen any 'libs' on this site using the word 'conservative' in such a denigrating way. Criticism by many on JT is directed against a certain subset of conservatives, not conservatism itself as a mindset. You, however, paint anyone who disagrees with you as a 'lib'.

The term has ceased to have any meaning, except as a blanket insult.

you guys have a real deep, diluted problem when it comes to hearing bad things about the people on the Democratic side.

You guys?

That's a pretty sweeping generalization, one that a true journalist would be able to support with evidence. You can't.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

You use 'liberal' as a pejorative. I haven't seen any 'libs' on this site using the word 'conservative' in such a denigrating way.

I mostly agree, except the reason you don't hear "conservative" used as a pejorative so often is because the left prefer to use words like "wingnut," etc. I frankly don't like the use of "liberal" the way Americans use it either. Many on the left are anything but liberal. If the left were really liberal, it would be much easier to have a civil conversation with them without it degenerating into name-calling and accusations.

For the record, I have no use for either party. Two sides of the same devalued coin.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

commanteer

I mostly agree, except the reason you don't hear "conservative" used as a pejorative so often is because the left prefer to use words like "wingnut," etc. I frankly don't like the use of "liberal" the way Americans use it either. Many on the left are anything but liberal.

You have a point and it needs to be addressed. There has to be a reanalysis of the terms liberal, conservative, left, and right, etc. These words do not mean what they used to, and they are fraught with ambiguity and strife.

The big sticking point is which side has become more radicalized, the so-called 'left' or the so-called 'right'. I know what my opinion is, but given how polarized the 'United' States has become, there is obviously need for discussion.

The current election campaign may be a humongous joke, but maybe one that will jolt the public into a more reasoned discourse.

Fingers crossed.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Obviously this article was written by two ignoramouses who have absolutely no clue how American politics works. GOP have no chance in 2016...Really??? Donald Trump as POTUS? Or Jeb Bush for that matter? There is no one of substance in that party who can be looked at as a serious contender. They are all carnival acts for the small minded people who have no clue.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It's not an issue of liberals against conservatives. It's about the current state of the Republican Party.

True, but you have to be way off base if you think that the Democratic party is full and functioning with all its bells and whistles properly. They have their own problems cut out for them as well.

And hysterical shriekers like bass4funk, who mistake Obama Derangement Syndrome with a coherent political philosophy.

No, not at all, that would be the left that vehemently refuses to accept the truth that this president has been one of the worst and utter and complete failure.

You use 'liberal' as a pejorative. I haven't seen any 'libs' on this site using the word 'conservative' in such a denigrating way.

Because they can't and most logic minded, NON-Kool aid drinking liberals can admit that the last 7 years have been a total disaster.

Criticism by many on JT is directed against a certain subset of conservatives, not conservatism itself as a mindset. You, however, paint anyone who disagrees with you as a 'lib'.

No, not anyone, just the usual liberal suspects on JT.

The term has ceased to have any meaning, except as a blanket insult.

Now you truly understand how I feel and many of us conservatives when you guys keep harping on Bush and fail to realize that the Bush syndrome that is driving the liberal hatred is nothing more than a waste of time.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Now you truly understand how I feel and many of us conservatives when you guys keep harping on Bush and fail to realize that the Bush syndrome that is driving the liberal hatred is nothing more than a waste of time.

Hating the Bush is hardly a waste of time. We need to never let the world forget how horrible he was, so that his mistakes are never repeated.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Hating the Bush is hardly a waste of time.

And yet, you guys mention him constantly even though, the man is long, long gone, who's moved on and enjoying his life and you guys can't move on, that's why you're blind when it comes to the current president and his foul ups.

We need to never let the world forget how horrible he was, so that his mistakes are never repeated.

I understand and also now millions of people feel the same way about Obama and now as a result, we have to make sure to never, ever let the people forget that Barack Hussein is one of the most incompetent presidents in US history.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Because they can't and most logic minded, NON-Kool aid drinking liberals can admit that the last 7 years have been a total disaster.

Stock market index highest ever

Unemployment under 6% (first time since 2007)

Affordable health care available for everyone

Ended two wars

Equal marriage right for ALL Americans (I know, you conservatives hate that)

Federal Deficit lowest since 2008

Yeah, TOTAL disaster!

No, I can deal with the facts,

Oh, really??,,,

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Those facts have not managed to permeate the bubble.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Those facts have not managed to permeate the bubble.

We both share the same feeling

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Wow, I'm amazed to hear you admit it. Not that I expect you to actually tone down your rhetoric or anything. After all, the president is still black.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The two main factors that a republican will win are not mentioned. That the current republican candidates are bufffoons in not relevant, almost every politician in either party is a buffoon.

Getting back to the tow factors, first, despite polls (which are always created to produce a desired result), Hillary is probably the most hated woman in America. She is a ambitious and vindictive bitch who would sacrifice babies on an altar to be president. Second, Bernie Sanders is 74 years old. In Japan he could be elected, but America does not elect presidents over 70 anymore. And he is too "progressive" to win, his interview by Bill Maher showed he is merely spouting party tripe, but has no real ideas on how to follow up on it.

Biden? He thinks sushi is Chinese food, he can't wipe his backside without assistance. He is buffoon far beyond any of the republican candidates.

The next president will be a man with lots of hair, who tells the people what they want to hear, and can spout lots of fear and nonsense in order to divide and control the constituency, and whoever it is, it will be a democrat.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@sangetsu despite polls (which are always created to produce a desired result),

I stopped reading when I saw the above from your post. Too bad some posters can only defend their positions by distorting truths and flat out prevaricating to make their points, however so dull.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Sangetsu polls (which are always created to produce a desired result),

Can you provide a reliable source for this? Always?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Because they can't and most logic minded, NON-Kool aid drinking liberals can admit that the last 7 years have been a total disaster.

It has been an unmitigated disater.

Stock market index highest ever

Pumped up by easy money made available by QE. Interest rates are at near zero, so companies have borrowed money and bought stock, raising prices, and executive bonuses.

Unemployment under 6% (first time since 2007)

Utter nonsense, the formula for computing unemployment has been changed, and changed, and changed again. The real number to look at is the labor participation rate, which 62.8%, meaning that more than one-third or Americans are not working. This number is at a 30 year low, meaning that unemployment is as bad as in the bad-old days or Carter. Worse yet, the number of people working part-time is at a record high. The "unemployment" rate merely indicates the number of people who have applied for first-time unemployment benefits, and every president since Johnson has changed the formula a bit to make the figure look better.

Affordable health care available for everyone

Tell that to the self-employed people who have seen their premiums double or more, and their deductables double or more as well. So far the number of uninsured has been reduced only half as much as promised. Many of the stse exchanges which were set up have been closed down as they have not enrolled enough healthy people to be viable.

Ended two wars

The wars are still going on, The Taliban have recaptured cities in Afghanistan, ISIS has captured towns and cities in Iraq and Syria. US troops are less involved, but the conflicts continue, and others are emerging. If the situation destabilizes enough, large-scale deployments of US troops might be necessary to prevent wordwide disruption of energy supplies.

Equal marriage right for ALL Americans (I know, you conservatives hate that)

Irrelevant. For years it was said by the counter-cultire that marriage was a stupid conservative/religious institution which denied freedom to both partners. Now their views are 180% opposite, and the counter-culture is now as hypocritical as the religious convservatives they once derided. You can marry your cat or car for all I care.

Federal Deficit lowest since 2008

"Deficit" is not the same as "debt". The national debt has not been reduced by so much as a single penny since 2008, and remains at an all-time record level (and continues it's rapid ascent). Reduced deficit spending means merely that debt is accumulating less quickly than before. And even then, you have to wait until the end of the year and add adjustments and supplemental spending, which are genrally much more than expected.

Yeah, TOTAL disaster!

Absolutely.

No, I can deal with the facts,

Obvioulsy you can't.

Can you provide a reliable source for this? Always?

Google is your friend in this matter. Polls can be manipulated by their creators, or even by the opinions of pollsters. There have been numerous books and studies published describing the vagaries of polls, many are fascinating. Take a look at the polling process used to come up with the figure than "97% of scientists believe in human-caused global,warming" The cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does that sound like "97% of the world's scientists?"

Have you ever participated in a mainstream poll? I haven't, and no one I know has.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@Sangetsu Can you provide a reliable source for this? Always? Google is your friend in this matter. Polls can be manipulated by their creators, or even by the opinions of pollsters.

In other words you cannot provide evidence for your statement. I know JT is not a refereed journal and that individuals are by and large free to express personal opinions without evidence, but I still think people should try to be truthful. And no, providing a couple of anecdotes to support an opinion does not support your 'always' contention.

polls (which are always created to produce a desired result),

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

In other words you cannot provide evidence for your statement.

Are you serious? I mean really? Do a simple search using the key words "can polls give a predetermined result", and see what you come up with.

An interesting experiment has been held many times in various universities to test the fallibility of personal opinion in clinical research and polls. The experiment is interesting, you give two groups of pollsters a set of cards which they read from. They are not allowed to ask or say anything which is not written on the cards. But half of the pollsters are told that 60% of respondents will answer positively, the other have are told that 60% of respondents will answer negatively. Even though all of the respondents take the same poll, the results follow what the pollster believes they will be, in other words, the pollster himself can determine the results of a poll even when he is not allowed verbally influences respondents. When it comes to creating polls, it is very easy to string together questions in a way to get respondents the answers you want.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Are you serious? I mean really? Do a simple search using the key words "can polls give a predetermined result", and see what you come up with.

You used the word always; I asked you to find evidence for that, for poll results always being manipulated. Of course poll results can be manipulated; I wasn't questioning that. It was your use of the word always.

polls (which are always created to produce a desired result),

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You used the word always; I asked you to find evidence for that, for poll results always being manipulated. Of course poll results can be manipulated; I wasn't questioning that. It was your use of the word always.

As in the 2012 election when the Dems manipulated the numbers making the it seem as if the unemployment was very low when it wasn't even close. But it was an election year and the Dems wanted to do anything to get Obama back in the White House.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/welch-unemployment-rate/

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

What gets me about this stunning and predictable revaluation is that Democrats really think that don't have a problem with integrity, responsibility and accountability, but want to skew conservatives as being a party lacking morals or scruples.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I love this kind of water weirding. Complacency will destroy the Republicans.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

When Nate Silver got all quanty with his 538 analyses, which made him famous, I was sure that other people would be champing at the bit to get in on that action.

This article shows the result. "The POWER of incumbency" is pushed at us as a force, a certainty, a truism, when in fact it is just something that has shown up in the data of the past. Sure. If you have to make a model about the future, and if you know nothing else, ok. Use it to make your model.

But using statistics is not a justification for being dumb. Surely we know more about politics than election trends stretching back to FDR's days. And we know better than to base our future on Warren G. Harding's administration.

The writers are playing a shell game. "This result is not my opinion... it is from the model!" they will say. But they put together the model. And they can put it together such that they can get the clickbait result they want. And if the Republicans don't wind up being successful, they will blame the model. The one that they produced and publicized.

I hope people can see through this. It looks like something that Nate Silver would do, but it isn't. Nate knows what he is doing. He takes responsibility for his models and he is careful with them. He does not rely on conventional wisdom, and he delights in predicting when it will be wrong.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@SpeedRacer

Don't forget, Moody's Election model puts a Dem in the Whitehouse

DId I mention the model has successfully predictid every election back to 1980, including a perfect electoral vote prediction in the 2012 election

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13271435/1/democrats-to-win-in-a-landslide-in-2016-according-to-moody-s-election-model.html

Anyways, here the thing: Dems start with a great advantage in secured electoral votes., at 227. Check this out:

http://www.270towin.com/

Notice, the site puts Wisconsin in play for the Republicans. But WI has not gone for a Republican since, now get this, 1984.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"selective liberal hypocrisy" Yes, because it was the Republicans who invented ObamaCare.

Also, Democrats are more strict about welfare. Proof: Clinton cut welfare payouts back in 96.

Obama kept taxes quite low.

Reagan inked 3M amnesty AND raised taxes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No, it's fun. I enjoy getting people spinning. But I don't hate Republicans. I would have been OK with Mccain back in 2000 when he was......younger. For a Republican now I would not mind Chris Christie. At least he's not condescending. And I'm sure Christie will love the WH kitchen and keep his cook staff busy.

Next fact:

Record number of millionaires under Obama.

Now there is one person here who is an ex-CEO of an American fortune 500 company. Admits he's a multi millionaire and has traveled around by corporate jet. Waiting for his response like he always does! He used to work for millions and millions per year. But I guess retired or something.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

But I don't hate Republicans.

No one's perfect...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Exactly. Clinton screwed up admittedly when he got tough on crime. It just put more people in jail and made a point contest with police to see who could get promoted faster.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Two simple reasons a Republican will likely win in 2016

I think this analysis would be correct assuming that America had not undergone a fundamental transformation. It is very likely that America has reached the tipping point where the number of takers have finally outnumbered the makers that made America the leading nation in the world. If Hillary wins representing a party that has added $8 trillion to the debt, record numbers of Americans without work, declining median incomes, increasing and destabilizing income inequality, and a sharp decline in American influence in the world then you can conclude that America has become a one party state at the national level.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” -Benjamin Franklin

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites