|
evilweasel posted:Bush I, Nixon. That's off the top of my head, there may be more. Those are the only two and Nixon doesn't really count as he was MIA for 8 years.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:But when was the last time a Democratic VP was elected to a first term as POTUS? Just once: Martin Van Buren. The problem with this is that Gore was (or nearly was) elected and the only reason that you're excluding Johnson and Truman is that they assumed office after their President died. Oh, and HHH nearly won in '68 and most likely would have won if Nixon hadn't illegally sabotaged the peace talks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Those are the only two and Nixon doesn't really count as he was MIA for 8 years. I disagree - he wasn't MIA, he lost to JFK then came back and won when he got his second shot. More to the point a quick count of the past VPs says that 14 of them later became President. That's not bad odds - considerably better than any other position I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
VP gets to ascend to the Presidency if something happens to the President (dies, assassinated, resigns), which happened quite a bit in the mid-20th century (Truman, LBJ, Ford all did it in a 30-year period). Medical science and improved security (recent lapses notwithstanding) mean fewer spot promotions to the big chair - it's been 40 years since the last one - but it still gives the veep a non-zero chance of becoming President without much effort.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The problem with this is that Gore was (or nearly was) elected and the only reason that you're excluding Johnson and Truman is that they assumed office after their President died. Oh, and HHH nearly won in '68 and most likely would have won if Nixon hadn't illegally sabotaged the peace talks. I was under the impression that the disaster at the Democratic Convention was what helped Nixon win that election, but I haven't researched that election very much. An elaboration would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
A lot of things contributed. LBJ was going to run for a third term until it became obvious that Vietnam would sink him. He didn't withdraw until March of '68. After that, RFK was supposed to win the nomination, until he got shot. Then there was the chaos at the convention. And finally, there was an 11th hour peace deal that the Nixon campaign scuttled by sending someone to the embassy and promising even more concessions if Nixon were to win. Turns out that by "concessions", he meant "bombs", but po-tat-OH, po-TA-to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
If you want to group post-Civil War US history into partisan dynasties: (I forgot there were no colors, but that might have made this better) 1861-1933 Republican dominance: 12.03/18 terms Lincoln-Lincoln/Johnson-Grant-Grant-Hayes-Garfield/Arthur-Cleveland-Harrison-Cleveland-McKinley-McKinley/Roosevelt-Roosevelt-Taft-Wilson-Wilson-Harding/Coolidge-Coolidge-Hoover 1933-1969 Democratic dominance: 7/9 terms Roosevelt-Roosevelt-Roosevelt-Roosevelt/Truman-Truman-Eisenhower-Eisenhower-Kennedy/Johnson-Johnson. 1969-1993 Republican dominance: 5/6 terms Nixon-Nixon/Ford-Carter-Reagan-Reagan-Bush 1993-present... Potential Democratic dominance(?) 4/6 terms Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Obama-Obama Since 1969, 7/12 elections have been won by Republicans. Carter and Clinton might have looked like blips before 2008, but potentially 1992 really did start a new age for Democrats. Doing the math (5/(52*4)=0.025) to seeing how long Lincoln served out of his term made me surprisingly upset. I guess that's still a hot button for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The problem with this is that Gore was (or nearly was) elected and the only reason that you're excluding Johnson and Truman is that they assumed office after their President died. That's true, because being President already gives you an incumbent advantage. I'm optimistically assuming no Democratic President will die, resign, or be removed in the next 10 years, which would completely change the playoff picture. Also true, Gore won the election, but obviously he wasn't elected. If the Electoral College had been comprised of nonpartisan upstanding members of the community, as originally intended, they surely would have recognized there was no objective winner in Florida and split their EVs, something I'm sure much more in line with the Founding Fathers' original idea for why the Electoral College existed in the first place. Seriously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:That's true, because being President already gives you an incumbent advantage. I'm optimistically assuming no Democratic President will die, resign, or be removed in the next 10 years, which would completely change the playoff picture. Speaking of which, what do you guys think about this campaign I've heard rumors of to have blue states with Republican legislatures go to an EV-split situation? This seems like it could upend the map significantly, although if it just COINCIDENTALLY happens to be in three large Democratic-leaning swing states, at some point I think they're going to have a hard time explaining that in a way other than "gently caress you, we rule now, the First Tea Party Division occupies Washington."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Joementum posted:A lot of things contributed. LBJ was going to run for a third term until it became obvious that Vietnam would sink him. He didn't withdraw until March of '68. After that, RFK was supposed to win the nomination, until he got shot. Then there was the chaos at the convention. And finally, there was an 11th hour peace deal that the Nixon campaign scuttled by sending someone to the embassy and promising even more concessions if Nixon were to win. Turns out that by "concessions", he meant "bombs", but po-tat-OH, po-TA-to. I know that it happened, and it still astonishes me as the most blatant treason by a Presidential candidate in American history. Chennault urged a Communist group to continue shooting American soldiers in order to help Nixon win the election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Speaking of which, what do you guys think about this campaign I've heard rumors of to have blue states with Republican legislatures go to an EV-split situation? It's not going to happen. All of this speculation is based on a bill in the Michigan legislature that didn't make it out of committee and that Rick Snyder said he would have vetoed anyway. The sponsor of that bill didn't run for re-election last year and it's not going to come up again in the next session.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Nessus posted:
Won't happen because politicians support their own interests before the party interests and that would vastly dilute their national influence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Speaking of which, what do you guys think about this campaign I've heard rumors of to have blue states with Republican legislatures go to an EV-split situation? This seems like it could upend the map significantly, although if it just COINCIDENTALLY happens to be in three large Democratic-leaning swing states, at some point I think they're going to have a hard time explaining that in a way other than "gently caress you, we rule now, the First Tea Party Division occupies Washington."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The problem with this is that Gore was (or nearly was) elected and the only reason that you're excluding Johnson and Truman is that they assumed office after their President died. Oh, and HHH nearly won in '68 and most likely would have won if Nixon hadn't illegally sabotaged the peace talks. I thought he sabotaged the peace talks for the 72 election, how did he do it for the 68 election too? Chamale posted:I know that it happened, and it still astonishes me as the most blatant treason by a Presidential candidate in American history. Chennault urged a Communist group to continue shooting American soldiers in order to help Nixon win the election. Unless he was a lich or Nixon was a necromancer (not too much of stretch), it would be difficult since he had been dead for 10 years when Nixon was running in 68. sullat fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:The next Democrat's VP slot will be worth only half of the usual bucket of warm piss. I'm worried that the tech bubble will pop before the 2016 elections, sending us back into recession, which will promptly be laid at the Democrats' feet. Even if the crash doesn't come until after the election, and Clinton is elected, what's stopping it from fouling up her reelection campaign in 2020?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:I'm worried that the tech bubble will pop before the 2016 elections, sending us back into recession, which will promptly be laid at the Democrats' feet. Even if the crash doesn't come until after the election, and Clinton is elected, what's stopping it from fouling up her reelection campaign in 2020? There's indication that it's relatively isolated for a bubble so even if there are downturns it won't effect the economy at large that much. Also the ones that are most likely to get hurt by it are the ones that effectively don't exist anyway (i.e., the startups that rely on billions of VC money, not Google).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
A tech bubble burst would disrupt (heh) the Northern California economy, but nowhere near enough to put CA in play. This bubble isn't nearly as pervasive or out-of-control as the 1990s one. There's been nothing like TimeWarner buying AOL for $160bn (that's $220bn in today's money). One of the problems of the tech bubble is that it doesn't actually employ very many people for all the valuation it generates (when Facebook bought Whatsapp for $21bn, Whatsapp had something like 80 employees) but at least when the bubble bursts it won't throw huge numbers of people out of work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Tech bubble? There's no tech bubble. Last time, it was fueled a bunch of all-hat-and-no-cattle dotcoms, like pets.com, Epidemic.com, onmoney.com, etc., who were buying huge servers and airing Super Bowl ads before they had cash inflow. Maybe today Google and especially Facebook are overvalued, but it wouldn't make too much of a dent in the economy if reality ensued. For the internet, you have Amazon, who have learned well from the last bubble and now have a bunch of real-world infrastructure, valuable assets and reliable revenue. Lots of cattle, yeehaw. The zeitgeist is just too pessimistic right now for us to be in a bubble. For more thoughts, see: http://www.businessinsider.com/tech-bubble-2014-9 Our current wealth/income disparity may be a destabilizing force (see late 18th century France), but otherwise this economy is stable and growing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Tech bubble? There's no tech bubble. Uber quite clearly would not exist without billionaires wanting to pump money into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:The next Democrat's VP slot will be worth only half of the usual bucket of warm piss. How many political parties in American history have been as blatantly bad about everything and as unlikeable to anyone who isn't them, ever, outside the goddamn Confederacy? If the Republicans can field a sane candidate in 2024 who doesn't openly hate the America of 2024, yeah, they may win. And if a rat was capable of photosynthesis, I might keep one as a pet. Analysing trends and voter patterns doesn't work if one side fields a potato.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
There are a lot of "app" companies with zillion-dollar valuations and no viable business model. It's an overheated sector and it'll fall down sooner or later, but it's a pale shadow of the size and insanity of the 1990s bubble. Uber is currently rated as more valuable than the entire taxi and livery sector of the economy and they're still able to raise piles of money. This can't go on indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:I'm worried that the tech bubble will pop before the 2016 elections, sending us back into recession, which will promptly be laid at the Democrats' feet. Even if the crash doesn't come until after the election, and Clinton is elected, what's stopping it from fouling up her reelection campaign in 2020? The real danger isn't the tech bubble bursting, it's the Republicans pulling the trigger on something like the debt ceiling or other "must pass" legislation. There's every reason to believe that no matter how brazenly sociopathic they are a bad economy will be a zero-sum loss for Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
FMguru posted:There are a lot of "app" companies with zillion-dollar valuations and no viable business model. It's an overheated sector and it'll fall down sooner or later, but it's a pale shadow of the size and insanity of the 1990s bubble. Note: higher than the entire taxi and livery sector of the world economy not just the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Uber quite clearly would not exist without billionaires wanting to pump money into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
I suppose it could actually be good for the economy if billionaires stop trying to play the startup lottery and actually invest money into the real economy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How many political parties in American history have been as blatantly bad about everything and as unlikeable to anyone who isn't them, ever, outside the goddamn Confederacy? If the Republicans can field a sane candidate in 2024 who doesn't openly hate the America of 2024, yeah, they may win. And if a rat was capable of photosynthesis, I might keep one as a pet. After sniveling elitist weaklings Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis, who would have seen Bill Clinton coming? After Hoover, who would have foreseen Eisenhower? There are a lot of midterms between now and 2024. Plenty of time to rebrand the Republican party, if they're smart about it. Maybe this time, it will be a good version of the party, instead of the perverted version of anti-scientific corporatist racist pidgeon-hawks we see today. Something a bit more libertarian to fit with the younger crowd, probably. That, or they could exploit the complacency caused by 16 years of economic growth and find some wedge issue to motivate their base while the Obama/Clinton coalition forgets to vote because it's such a nice day outside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I suppose it could actually be good for the economy if billionaires stop trying to play the startup lottery and actually invest money into the real economy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:After sniveling elitist weaklings Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis, who would have seen Bill Clinton coming? After Hoover, who would have foreseen Eisenhower? There are a lot of midterms between now and 2024. Plenty of time to rebrand the Republican party, if they're smart about it. Maybe this time, it will be a good version of the party, instead of the perverted version of anti-scientific corporatist racist pidgeon-hawks we see today. Something a bit more libertarian to fit with the younger crowd, probably. I see a flaw. Carter, Mondale and Dukakis were bad candidates. Hoover was a bad president. The Teapublicans are, at their core, a bad party. Their solution to everything is always to go further right, and they'd need someone to stand up and say thats not working. Forget getting people to follow that person, when has saying that not resulted in them tearing that person to shreds? They'd need to break their cycle of behaviour before they can come back and redeem themselves, and its been made very clear no force on this earth or any other will break that pattern. The momentum is simply too strong, it has become self perpetuating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:no force on this earth or any other will break that pattern. Losses big enough to shut a party out of majorities in both houses of Congress and the Executive for at least a couple of election cycle would do it, but we are gerrymandered out of the possibility of that for now, in addition to the crappy feckless campaigning by the Dems in non Presidential years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
This is a dumb argument, there are only a handful of Democratic politicians in the country whose political stature would not be monumentally elevated by being their party's Vice Presidential nominee and those consist entirely of the men who've been previously nominated for the top of the ticket and Hillary Clinton.
DynamicSloth fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
sullat posted:
His wife. Look farther than the first google result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chennault
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I see a flaw. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
I still await the day the Republicans unironically use the Carter Doctrine as cassus belli.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Carter was one hell of a president Brought out the Bible thumpers to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Carter was one hell of a president I don't deny that. A Christian in power actual Christians could be proud of. But he was terrible at explaining to the people why they needed to be adults, why Americans couldn't just chase easy answers and empty rhetoric. Making him bad as a candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Carter was a decent campaigner, but pretty terrible at managing his Presidency. He staffed the White House with a bunch of people from his Georgia Gubernatorial staff and didn't work with Congress on his initiatives. That, along with the flailing economy, is what led Kennedy to challenge him in the primary and by the time the convention started his approval rating among Democrats was in the 40s. He did alright once the actual campaign took off: Then he had a bad debate performance, the hostage negotiations in Iran broke down (possibly due to interference by the Reagan campaign), and inflation kept ticking up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Carter was one hell of a president In reality, he was mediocre. His Georgia Mafia was ignorant of how Washington operated and alienated everyone. He tried to bully Congress who just got mad and refused to cooperate with him. As a result, he was not good at getting anything done and got blamed whenever anything went wrong. He's been a fantastic ex-President, probably one of the best ever. In office, though, he wasn't much to write home about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:His wife. Look farther than the first google result. Wife, eh? Guess my patriarchy must be showing, didn't think to check her bio.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:In office, though, he wasn't much to write home about. Cough cough Camp David Accords cough cough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Howard Dean is Ready for Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:50
|
|