Wednesday Open Thread [4.15.15]

Jonathan Capehart says Clinton is a “culture warrior” on equal rights:

Yes, plenty of Republicans have evolved on LGBT rights and marriage equality. But they aren’t running for president, which is great for Clinton and the other Democrats who will run for president. For them, LGBT Americans are an integral part of the national fabric. That their lives, relationships and families deserve the respect and dignity accorded all those striving to achieve their brand of the American Dream is a settled issue. It’s just one more issue to contrast themselves more favorably against a Republican Party and candidates who want the nation to believe it is looking to the future — from a 1950s redoubt.

Monica Potts at The Daily Beast dives into polling on millenials:

Millennials are first of all more likely to be Democratic—51 percent identify as Democratic or Democratic leaning, as opposed to 35 percent Republican leaning. Millennials are a big generation, and the younger half are more partisan than their slightly older peers: the number who identified as Dem or Dem leaning inched up from 50 to 51 percent, those who leaned in the opposite direction toward Republicans went up from 13 percent to a still anemic 16 percent. Meanwhile, the number of undecideds fell, which makes sense in our highly partisan climate.

New York Times: “An almost otherworldly resilience has characterized the 40-year arc of the Clintons’ political lives, a well-documented pattern of dazzling success, shattering setback and inevitable recovery. But what their admirers call grit and critics deem shamelessness can overshadow another essential element of the Clinton school: a willingness to put on the hair shirt of humility to regain power.”

“Just as Mr. Clinton began a comeback with a down-home plea for forgiveness, Mrs. Clinton now seems determined to prove — perhaps to the point of overcompensation — that she will not repeat the mistakes that plagued her 2008 campaign.”

“A significant — and surprising — majority of GOP insiders in the early states offered at least some praise for” Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign roll-out, Politico reports.

“These are people who will never vote for her, but they have their fingers on the political pulse in the two states that kick off the nominating process. While most Republicans thought the former secretary of state’s announcement was contrived or phony, they nevertheless viewed it as a savvy and effective campaign launch.”

“I don’t really care. I think they’re all losers.” — Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), when asked to assess prospects for the 2016 Republican presidential field.

Eugene Robinson: “That was quick. Strike up “Happy Days Are Here Again,” and cue the balloon drop. Better yet, Democrats could skip the whole primaries-and-convention thing and let Hillary Clinton get to work on picking a running mate. Barring the political equivalent of an asteroid strike, it’s over. The slick video Clinton released Sunday was both campaign announcement and acceptance speech. I’m tempted to say the Democratic presidential nomination is hers to lose, but I have trouble imagining any plausible way she could lose it.”

Jason is always fond of London’s odd gambling market, which you can find a bookie to bet on everything it appears. And the reason he is fond of it is because, to him, it is a true indicator of polling intention, because people are betting their real money on whether a certain candidate can win. And sure, you can put money down on an outlier candidate with high odds, but that candidate better have a realistic shot for the nomination and the Presidency. For example, if you put money on Ben Carson, you are a fool.

Hillary is by far and away the odds on favorite. Some outfits have her as an 11/10 favorite, or 5/4, or 6/5, or even money at 1/1.

Jeb Bush is next in line as a 7/2 favorite, or 4/1, or 5/1. Marco Rubio’s odds fall in a range between 7/1 and 11/. Scott Walker’s odds similarly range from 7/1 to 12/1 (though most have him in the double digits behind Rubio.

Washington University’s John Patty at Mischiefs of Faction looks at whether there really is a 8 year jinx (i.e., is it really that hard for a party to win three presidential elections in a row?). I found some of his history wanting, so I add to it where necessary.

Is it really “hard” for a party to hang on to the White House for 12 years? The obvious answer is, “yes,” it is generally unlikely to that one party will control the White House for 3 terms. But, let’s do some math, with admittedly limited evidence.

If we accept that George Washington and John Adams were of the same “party,” then the presidency was held by the same party for the first 12 years (3 terms) of the Republic. Then, Jefferson, Monroe, and John Quincy Adams were co-partisans (of the “other” party relative to Washington and Adams) holding the presidency for 20 years (5 terms). Jackson and Van Buren controlled the presidency for the same party for 12 more years (3 terms).

This ends in 1840, when stuff started to get kind of crazy—at first slowly and then incredibly quickly—as the issue of slavery emerged and stretched the nation to civil war. For 20 years (5 terms), no party held the presidency for more than two terms in a row (and, to be honest, the notion of “party” was remarkably fluid during that time).

Actually, the two parties existing at the time, the Whigs and the Democrats, exchanged terms every four years, and then the Whig Presidents kept dying. Williams Henry Harrison (W) gets elected in 1840, then he immediately dies and you have John Tyler (W) for four years. Then in 1844, we elect James K. Polk for four years (D). In 1848, the voters turned back to the Whigs and elected Zachary Taylor (W). Taylor dies a couple of years later, and Millard Fillmore (W) serves out the term. In 1852, we elect Barbara Bush’s great great great grandfather, Franklin Pierce (D) for four years. In 1856, we elect Pat Buchanan’s great great great grandfather, James Buchanan (D) for four years.

Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, and began (for lots of varied reasons) a period of 24 years (6 terms) of one-party control of the presidency. Starting in 1884, we have 12 years of partisan switching, bookended by Grover Cleveland’s (uniquely) non-successive terms in office. We then have 16 years of Republican control of the office under McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and Taft.

Not really. Lincoln was elected twice, in 1860 and 1864. In 1864, he for some reason chose a Democrat to be his running mate in a show of national unity during the civil war. This was a bad decision because Andrew Johnson ended Radical Reconstruction during his Presidency, and as we know now 150 years later, the South needed to be radically reconstructed.

In 1868 and 1872, you have Ulysses S. Grant win two terms. So yes, there you have four consecutive terms won by one party, the Republican Party, though you had a Democrat in office for almost a full term in there (1865-1869). In 1876, the Democratic Party and its candidate, Samuel Tilden, won the election. But in shenanigans that makes the 2000 vote count in Florida look like a picnic, the Republican Rutherford B. Hayes is chosen as the winner. So, while technically 1876 is now the fifth election won by the Republicans in a row, we also have our second asterisk. In 1880, James Garfield (R) is elected, giving the Republicans their sixth term in a row. Garfield is soon assassinated and Chester Arthur (R) completes the term.

Then Grover Cleveland is elected in 1884. Grover Cleveland is known as that President who had non consecutive terms. But really, he won the Presidency three times in a row. He was elected in 1884. He won the popular vote in 1888 but lost out in the electoral college to Benjamin Harrison, and then he ousted Harrison in 1892. So really, what appears to be a back and forth between the parties is really 12 years of single party rule.

Then you have McKinley (R) winning in 1896 and 1900, Teddy Roosevelt (R) winning a Republican third term in 1904. But, McKinley and Roosevelt today would be of separate parties. McKinley was the Mittens Romney of the 19th Century. Teddy Roosevelt was the Trust-busting Progressive. But yes, technically, same party. In 1908 Taft wins the fourth term in a row for the GOP.

Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, served two terms, but surrendered the office back to the Republicans in 1920. The Republicans sent Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover to the White House for one term each, a period of 12 years. They were followed by Franklin Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman for 20 years (4 terms).

Let’s pause for a second. Up through the Second World War, there were 2 elections in which one party had controlled the presidency for 8 consecutive years and was defeated. On the other hand, there were 5 elections in which one party had controlled the presidency for (exactly) 8 consecutive years and retained control. That’s over 70% success in holding on for 12 years plus. So, to be clear, from a very naive standpoint, early history suggests that there might be some “partisan momentum.”

I think our history proves that are almost always caveats to consider and rules to be broken. In the one party rule era of the early 19th Century, of course one party was going to win 6 elections in a row. And after the Civil War, of course the GOP was going to win several elections in a row (although they didn’t really as I pointed out).

In the post war third term elections of 1960, 1968, 1976, 1988, 2000, and 2008, we have important asterisks / caveats to consider. 1960 was very close, and the ruling Republican Party very nearly won. 1968 was a year of horror, and I doubt any incumbent party would have won that election, and yet, Hubert Humphrey only lost to Nixon by a half a percentage point. One could argue that absent the assassinations of RFK and MLK that year, and absent the violence in Chicago, the Democrats would have won the 1968 election. In 1976, you had the special circumstance of the incumbent party dealing with Watergate and having a standard bearer that himself was not elected. And still, Ford only lost by 2 points. And in 2000, the Democrats actually won a third term. But the Supreme Court prevented Al Gore from taking office.

All things being equal, with no major events, no major wars, no major recessions, with the country just chugging along, parties can win third terms easily.