meatwad wrote:It's completely normal for so many from the incumbent president's party to retire in a re-election year though right?
I would love to see numbers on this. It feels odd to me, almost certain it didn't happen with Obama in 2012, but maybe I'm not remembering 2004 very well?
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Republican retirements have been ramping up slowly since hitting a low point in 2010, when the tea party surge gave them a 60+ seat jump in the House.
2010: 13 retirements, massively successful election
2012: 14
2014: 16
2016: 20, mostly in the aftermath of the Republican primary
2018: 26, mostly due to savage internal polling
2020: 12 already, with multiple Republican strategists suggesting many more announcements are coming. This is probably going to be the third straight election year with more than 20 “pure” (not running for other office) Republican retirements, which hasn’t happened in at least half a century and maybe ever.
For reference, in 2008 they had 27 retirements leading up to an election where Democrats gained 8 senate seats and 21 House seats. High retirement numbers usually mean bad internal polling for some, plus a handful of folks in safe seats retiring rather than waiting to become part of the minority party.
Is 20+ in a range of 13-27 statistically significant?
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Mickey wrote:Is 20+ in a range of 13-27 statistically significant?
For any given 2 year period, 20 is a rare number to reach. But to put the impact of it happening 3 elections in a row into perspective, let’s assume that 6 more retirements are announced in the coming months:
* 1992 happened to be a year with 50+ retirements total, and then a lot of swing state Rs retired in the face of Clinton scandal backlash. Those retirement numbers helped end Newt’s career.
Mickey wrote:Is 20+ in a range of 13-27 statistically significant?
For any given 2 year period, 20 is a rare number to reach. But to put the impact of it happening 3 elections in a row into perspective, let’s assume that 6 more retirements are announced in the coming months:
* 1992 happened to be a year with 50+ retirements total, and then a lot of swing state Rs retired in the face of Clinton scandal backlash. Those retirement numbers helped end Newt’s career.
this was helpful, thanks McP
Yeah this is really helpful contextualization.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
washing machine wrote:Maybe they're just opening up the opportunity for more good, young, common sense republicans like Dan Crenshaw for the sake of the party.
there's no way you typed that with a straight face.