Anyway, when I read that, I was like 'where the hell is a third party candidate that is popular on both sides of the aisle?' because the door is WIDE OPEN for a third party candidate to come in.
The man who would rush in to become a Third-party sensation is already representing the Republican party.
Nate Silver on what he got wrong:
Nate Silver ✔ @NateSilver538
Not in her wildest dreams did Hillary think GOP would pick a candidate who is both so unpopular and so devastating to conservative movement.
Nate Silver ✔ @NateSilver538
Updated post-Trump priors:
1. Voters are more tribal than I thought.
2. GOP is weaker than I thought.
3. Media is worse than I thought.
source
I don't understand how any of this happened. It's nonsensical.
If nothing else, the amount that people hate the party leaders should be a wake-up call that the parties are fundamentally broken and need fundamental reforms.
That's interesting. Hmm. I would guess that the newest generation of political leaders tend towards a more polarized form of politics and both A) political leaders are more willing to be not "likable" to the opposing party and more willing to be seen as less "the leader of our nation, undivided" and all that implies, and more "A political leader who is also president". B) Parties are more willing to demonize the opposing party and the opposing leaders.
Again, I would argue that this isn't totally unique to the present time, but it's at least unique relevant to the time-scale of when poll data begins.
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.
These are the sort of rules that are true until they aren't.
I've always preferred to divide the electoral history into the "party systems" that Wikipedia describes. Parties within these systems can be considered distinct from its counterparts in the other systems, since the parties rely on a certain coaltion, usually united by a single organizing principle which applies, and these coalitions represent democracy for the time. The six party systems are:
- First Party System: (1792 to 1824) Federalists vs Anti-Federalists or Democratic Republicans. Federalists represented the Agenda of Hamilton and strong central government, men of wealth in government, and close ties to Britain, while Democratic-Republicans basically oppose those things. Federalists become seen as elitists, and lose favor after opposing the War of 1812.
- Second Party System: (1828 to 1854) Democrats vs Whigs, plus various minor parties. Jacksonian era. What Wikipedia tells me is basically that the Democrats were the populist party, while the Whigs believed in rule of law and protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This period was characterized by the rise of parties as movers and shakers: high degree of party loyalty. Whigs collapsed as economic issues lose resonance and slavery, over which the party is totally divided, gains importance as an issue. Eventually Democrats move to the center and Whigs fade into irrelevance.
- Third Party System: (1854 to 1896) Democrats vs Republicans. Civil war occurred during this period. Parties focused on the Civil War, Reconstruction, race, and monetary issues (something something silver standard). Parties composed of broad coalitions, which Republicans solid among the relatively well-off and the north, with Democrats taking the support of the South. Known for its unique political environment, with unflinching party loyalty and the "spoils system". As you would expect, then, some of the most infamous party machines had their hey-day during this period, particularly the infamous Tammany Hall. Rise of minor parties like the Populist party, the socialist party, and the Prohibition party. Wikipedia describes some sort of strong religious divisions, but I am unable to precisely define them: Democratic Liturgical religions (public worship) versus pietical (something relating to Lutheranism and Reformed) Republicans. System collapses with the rise of William Jennings Bryan's Democratic party, collapsing the Democratic party; the party machines were also undermined by increasing Voter antipathy, decline in party loyalty, and civil service reform that got rid of the patronage that made machines possible. Later half also covers the gilded age.
- Fourth Party System: (1896 to 1932) Democrats vs Republicans. The Progressive Era. Issues included government regulation of trusts, gold v. silver, the rise of unions, Prohibition, and Women's suffrage. Foreign policy revolved around the United States emerging as a Great Power. Muckrackers continue to expose the corrupt party machines. Republicans take credit for several decades of solid economic growth. System ends with the Great Depression for reasons that should be obvious.
- Fifth Party System: (1932 to 1960s, or maybe it never ended) Dominated by the rise of the Democratic New Deal Coalition. Dominated by the Great Depression, the World War, and Cold War. Republicans are split badly, represented in the figure of Barry Goldwater. The rise of the Civil rights movement splits the democratic party badly, and Democratic party completes its shift away from the south.
- Sixth Party System: (1960s(?) to today) The same people you know and love. Democrats complete shift into party of African Americans, Hispanics, and white progressives. Republicans form the Moral Majority, and the Reagan generation. Disagreements exist about whether this system even exists, or when it actually started (collapse of new deal, rise of moral majority, rise of Reagan, rise of Democratic Third Way, rise of the 90s Republican Revolt or whatever), but the "consensus" is it started in the sixties.
The reason it's worthwhile to bring all this up is I've heard speculation that this sort of election could either bring about or foreshadow a realignment, bringing us into the Seventh Party System. I can't imagine what that might look like though.
EDIT: I hate when you write something and then everyone moves on while you worked.
And it's that sense of god damned entitlement to my political support that is most odious of all. Why not just do away with the pretense all together if I'm supposed to be told who to vote for? Fuck your politics.
Soundin pretty low-information
Laugh it up m8, in a year Hillary will be propping up Brussels and seducing Labour politicians with those sweet refugee visas.
Refugees from what exactly?
...Great Britain? The middle east? Russia? The post-apocalyptic hellscape caused by Global Warming?
Refugees from what exactly?
They are fleeing information shortages
This is the sorta comment where I
think I understand what was said, but am suspicious enough that I'm not willing to respond to it for fear of looking foolish.
Author
Topic: Murrican Politics Megathread 2016: There Will Be Hell Toupée (Read 1581007 times)