Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

That's why we say it has a tendency to be cyclical.

That isn't a tendency.  That's like flipping a coin twice and saying you know which side it tends to land on.  Except even less statistically significant then that.

[Orange Wizard]

If you flipped a coin and it went HHHHHTTTTHHHTTTTTHHTTTHHHHTTTTTTT you'd say there's a pattern there, no? It's not perfectly cyclical but that doesn't mean it's completely random and unpredictable.

[mainiac]

Yes but that's not analogous.  His theory was that certain conditions predicted a change.  Such a change has occurred twice.  That is two independent events not 30 independent events.

Saying "the party that won last time is likely to win this time" is not the same as saying it's cyclic.  Saying it's cyclic is saying that there were shifting points, the two switch over years.

[smjjames]

And which party controls the House and Senate is influenced by a LOT of factors anyway.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/clinton-email-server-hacker-222824 VERY most likely BS, in part because the guy provided no evidence and the FBI didn't find evidence (whatever that means), but as the investigation goes on and time goes on, things could come out of the woodwork.

Or he could be saving the juicy bits for later. Just goes to show how the email scandal is just slowly dripping and being drawn out.

[mainiac]

things could come out of the woodwork.

Okay you guys are just fucking with me now right?  First the cyclic thing and now another game of "chance is greater then zero".

[smjjames]

Only the Shadow knooooowwwwwsssssss......

Shitposting aside, this isn't exactly your typical year (both candidates being really unpopular for one), so it could go anywhere and even if Congress stays republican controlled, Trump doesn't exactly have a friendly Congress to work with because most of the republicans won't want to (willingly) work with him.

Closest analogy is probably Jimmy Carter who I hear had some bad relations with the democrat Congress.

[EnigmaticHat]

It follows a pattern which changes back and forth over time.  If it did not follow a pattern that changed predictably over time, it wouldn't be cyclical.  Words have meanings and all that.

But there is nothing predictable about it.  You have observed that a condition that is true more often then not was true in two occasions in the past.  That has no statistical significance.

Alright, let's go with a concrete theory, a hard and fast rule.  Using my previous definition of dominant party, and starting with the dissolution of the Federalist party: congress never changes unless it is either bouncing back to the dominant party, or the dominant party controls both houses and the presidency.

In all of US history I count 5 breaks from the pattern.  2 of these breaks occur when it cannot be identified who controls part of congress (tie in one case, it switched mid-way in another), in both of those cases a single senator flipping would cause the rule to hold true.  If you don't count those, that's 3 elections that don't follow the rule, 92 that do.

Also where are you getting twice?  First the democrats become dominant in 1825, then the Republicans in 1861, then the Democrats in 1933, then the Republicans in 1995.  Did you actually read my post besides finding a single sentence to chop out of it?
Edit: The rule also holds fast if you view the democrat-republicans as part of the democrats first run of dominance and start the counting at the 7th congress/1801.  This also extends the democrats original run of dominance to an even 60 years.

[SirQuiamus]

... pretty tangential to the current discussion, but someone help me out here. Earlier today I had a conversation with a fairly staunchly conservative relative in which they recommended something called ANP as a news source, noting that they had apparently been around since telegraphs first came in.

The, uh. Closest match I've been able to dig up googling was All News Pipeline, which apparently came into being in '14 (and its use as a new source is more questionable than Cthulhu's humanity), so that... doesn't fit the criteria.

Curious to know if any of you would happen to have a better idea what the zog they were referencing?

Maybe they meant AP but with an extra 'N' in the middle?

[smjjames]

... pretty tangential to the current discussion, but someone help me out here. Earlier today I had a conversation with a fairly staunchly conservative relative in which they recommended something called ANP as a news source, noting that they had apparently been around since telegraphs first came in.

The, uh. Closest match I've been able to dig up googling was All News Pipeline, which apparently came into being in '14 (and its use as a new source is more questionable than Cthulhu's humanity), so that... doesn't fit the criteria.

Curious to know if any of you would happen to have a better idea what the zog they were referencing?

Maybe they meant AP but with an extra 'N' in the middle?

Possibly? Though it's a cooperative rather than any specific news agency.

[Reelya]

AP dates from 1846 as well, so fits the date when telegraphy took off (1840s-1850s). AP came arounf about the same year as the first commercial telegraphs. It made sense: each newspaper couldn't really run it's own telegraph network, so they pool resources to create a wholesale news service.

Many stories just cite "AP" as the source, which could lead someone to believe they're called "A 'n' P".

At least they're not like those Reuters commies.

[Frumple]

That would make some sense!  Thanks. Pretty sure I've heard of AP before (and most of the uncertainty is coming from this headache, really), so I'm not quite as mildly confused now. Can't really recall what sort of reputation it has, though. Eh.

[Spehss _]

Closest analogy is probably Jimmy Carter who I hear had some bad relations with the democrat Congress.

My US history class actually talked briefly about Carter today. One of his primary campaign strategies was touting his "outsider" status in politics. Basically, he wasn't a politician, which Carter advertised as meaning he wasn't corrupt, was trustworthy and reliable and got work done, messages like that. Basically bashing the "establishment" career politicians.

This would explain why Congress did not like him much once he became president.

[Cruxador]

This would explain why Congress did not like him much once he became president.

Might also explain why he hasn't been doing much by way of politics lately. Not that driving horrifying parasites to extinction isn't more worthy of his time anyway.

[Spehss _]

This would explain why Congress did not like him much once he became president.

Might also explain why he hasn't been doing much by way of politics lately. Not that driving horrifying parasites to extinction isn't more worthy of his time anyway.

...I don't see where you're going with this?

So I skimmed the wikipedia article on Carter to see if I'm missing anything. Apparently according to the article he was a senator for a couple years and a governor of Georgia prior to being elected president in 1976. So he was not a complete outsider to politics. Remind me to never talk like I know shit ever again without fact checking first. I keep thinking I know shit just because a college class and textbook say it's so.

That said, the fact he was running in the campaign immediately following the watergate scandal and his history of being a peanut farmer probably helped get support for hims platform of being a relative "outsider" to politics.

[Twi]

I'm a Bernie supporter so I hate to say this but... its looking like Trump v Hillary.  Its looking a LOT like Trump v Hillary. 

Its gonna be a fun, not at all aggravating 4 years.  US politics are cyclical, history suggests that if Trump wins it might be the precursor to congress flipping.  The reverse of that is that if Trump wins, he gets a Republican congress with which to do... whatever it is that Trump decides to do.  If Hillary wins things will probably continue more or less like they did under Obama.  I'm sure she'll find a way to kill massive amounts of people in some third world country for no good reason, and make all the various investigations she's under go away.

As someone who supports Bernie, I'm rather annoyed at the amount of hate Clinton gets. Like, yeah, I don't like her, but geez. You don't have to dislike her THAT much, sheesh.

Thaaaaaaaaaat being said, Clinton would probably be pretty business as usual. So, you know, not great, and the resentment would fester much like it did under Obama.

Trump would be absolute chaos. Half the House would probably hate him, and I can see him ramming through five million executive orders to get things done. But then he probably would just delegate a lot of stuff to his subordinates, because it's entirely possible that 'hiring the best people' is how he does things. The kinds of precedent he would set would probably be crazy, and honestly I don't know how it'd turn out.