Name the next three U.S. Presidents (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 23, 2024, 09:18:28 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Name the next three U.S. Presidents (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Name the next three U.S. Presidents  (Read 172920 times)
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
« on: August 07, 2015, 11:40:28 AM »

2017-2025 Scott Walker
2025-2029 Carly Fiorina

2029-2033 Kamala Harris
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2015, 05:44:00 PM »

2017-2025 Scott Walker
2025-2029 Carly Fiorina

2029-2033 Kamala Harris

In a realignment period trending against their party, which took effect with Barack Obama's first-term election from 2008,  the Republicans aren't going to string together three consecutive presidential victories.

I disagree with the premise.
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2015, 08:08:30 PM »
« Edited: August 11, 2015, 08:10:37 PM by mencken »

2017-2025 Scott Walker
2025-2029 Carly Fiorina

2029-2033 Kamala Harris

In a realignment period trending against their party, which took effect with Barack Obama's first-term election from 2008,  the Republicans aren't going to string together three consecutive presidential victories.

I disagree with the premise.

You're allowed to feel that you "disagree." But, go back to the previous realignments of 1800–1824 (Democratic–Republican), 1828–1856 (Democratic), 1860–1892 (Republican), 1896–1928 (Republican), 1932–1964 (Democratic), and 1968–2004 (Republican) and cite an example of the out party having won three consecutive election cycles.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Of course if you go back retroactively, periods in which the roulette wheel chooses the red several times in a row are not going to have three blacks in a row. That has no statistical bearing on the future though. Unless you can provide some inherent reason why there should be merit to such 40 (36? 28?) year cyclic behavior, I shall continue to regard it as as valid as astrology.
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2015, 10:07:50 PM »

2017-2025 Scott Walker
2025-2029 Carly Fiorina

2029-2033 Kamala Harris

In a realignment period trending against their party, which took effect with Barack Obama's first-term election from 2008,  the Republicans aren't going to string together three consecutive presidential victories.

I disagree with the premise.

You're allowed to feel that you "disagree." But, go back to the previous realignments of 1800–1824 (Democratic–Republican), 1828–1856 (Democratic), 1860–1892 (Republican), 1896–1928 (Republican), 1932–1964 (Democratic), and 1968–2004 (Republican) and cite an example of the out party having won three consecutive election cycles.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Of course if you go back retroactively, periods in which the roulette wheel chooses the red several times in a row are not going to have three blacks in a row. That has no statistical bearing on the future though. Unless you can provide some inherent reason why there should be merit to such 40 (36? 28?) year cyclic behavior, I shall continue to regard it as as valid as astrology.

Realignments are not “fallacies.”

I will let you do your own research—assuming you’re capable—which should be a help to you.

What is even more amusing is that your entire theory contradicts itself. 537 more votes for Al Gore in Florida would provide a counterexample where Democrats won three consecutive elections in a Republican "realignment." Are we supposed to believe that such an insignificant difference is attributable to historicist hogwash? Similarly, are we to attribute Nixon's whisker loss in 1960 not to a poor debate performance or high turnout at the cemeteries, but to destiny?

Additionally, as I pointed out earlier, your alignment periods are of inconsistent length. The first is 28 years, the second is 32 years, then three of 36 years, followed by 40 years. Your realignment intervals should at least be consistent if you want a testable theory. Otherwise, couldn't one just as easily define the realignment periods as being 1968-1988 (Republican) and 1992-2012 (Democratic)? Both of those 24 year periods would be only 4 years short of your shortest realignment.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 12 queries.