Unusual Presidential Elections

[NorthernDog]

I have heard a lot of references to Nixon's 1972 landslide victory over George McGovern.  It was one of the most lop-sided in history. McGovern's campaign is most famous for favoring a quick end to the VietNam War.  However, there must be other factors that resulted in a 49-state electoral college blow-out.  Why did Nixon, only modestly popular, win so easily?  And why was Massachusetts favoring McGovern by a comfortable margin at the same time?

[zorkpolitics]

There were clearly multiple reasons:
1) McGovern was too radical/liberal for the times
2) He made a huge mistake by selecting Tom Eagleton as his VP, then discovered he had gone through electroshock, said he'd stand behind him 1000%, then dumped him a few days later.
3) proposed massive social spending programs that would have required tax increases.

I was a student in Boston then and spent election day getting voters to the polls in Maine, I remember the shock of the election being called for Nixon almost immediately after the polls closed in the east.

Now why did MA go for McGovern?  The Liberal Kenedy legacy, in those days when canvassing door to door it was incredably common to go into any blue collar home and see two pictures side by side: Jesus and JFK.  Moreover the 200,000 studnts in Boston plus the 80 colleges bring an additonal liberal edge to the state.  MA remains highly democratic it had the third highest Gore margin in 2000 (after DC and RI)

[Nym90]

All valid points, and another reason why Nixon's margin was so large was because of Watergate. Having copies of your opponent's campaign plan certainly doesn't hurt.
McGovern was not as extreme as he was made out to be. The man had been a war hero during World War II and been elected to the Senate from a conservative state (South Dakota). A large part of why he was able to be made to look like a fool was because of the fact that Nixon knew his every move in advance.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well I suppose "little things" like that do help...

[dazzleman]

It always mystified me that Massachusetts, the only state to vote for McGovern in 1972, voted twice for Ronald Reagan.

Granted, it was generally the weakest state that he carried, receiving just under 41% of the vote in the 3-way 1980 race, and 51% of the vote in 1984.

But it still makes me wonder.  Is it because the Massachusetts liberalism was centered on anti-war views, and that once that issue was removed there was less incentive to vote Democratic?  Any ideas?

[Nym90]

Well John Anderson helped Reagan to win the state in 1980, and it still very narrowly went for Reagan that year by less than 0.2%. And in 1984, it was the 2nd-most Democratic state in the nation behind Mondale's home state of Minnesota. But yes, Massachusetts did swing a little more Republican in the 80's than it had been before, and than it has been since. Even Massachusetts native Dukakis only carried it by 8 percent in 1988, but it really started to become much more Democratic under Clinton. In 1984, Massachusetts was only about 15 percentage points more Democratic than the national average, rather than almost 30 points more Democratic like it is now.
But yes, 1980 especially was somewhat of an aberration in Massachusetts, as it was only the 7th most Democratic state in the nation that year, after usually being one of the 2 most Democratic along with Rhode Island for most of the last 40 years. The Massachusetts economy may have been especially hard hit by the recession that year, and Carter seems to not have been nearly as popular (relatively speaking) in Massachusetts and other Northeastern states as other Democratic nominees have been in the last 40 years, while on the other hand performing better in the South in both of his runs than any other Democrat in the last 40 years has.
Carter was an abberation in many respects, as the voting patterns during both of his runs represented somewhat of a return to the old pre-Civil Rights Act voting patterns, at least geographically speaking.
And yes, it is somewhat odd that McGovern won Massachusetts by 8 points, but lost Rhode Island, when both states have otherwise voted very similarly to each other throughout the years, except in 1980, when Carter was much stronger in Rhode Island than in Massachusetts. My theory is that Massachusetts voters are more liberal than those in Rhode Island, especially culturally, and thus were more likely to support McGovern, but Rhode Island has more "traditional" Democrats (the state is heavily Catholic, with Catholics that seem more devout than those in Massachusetts) who were more attracted to Carter. Rhode Island is just as Democratic if not slightly moreso than Massachusetts, but seems less liberal.

[Ryan]

My theory is that Massachusetts voters are more liberal than those in Rhode Island, especially culturally, and thus were more likely to support McGovern, but Rhode Island has more "traditional" Democrats (the state is heavily Catholic, with Catholics that seem more devout than those in Massachusetts) who were more attracted to Carter. Rhode Island is just as Democratic if not slightly moreso than Massachusetts, but seems less liberal.

Well I'll admit I dont know enough about New England to give an informed opinion, but your theory sounds plausible.
Its a similar situation right now in the South. A majority of most states probably self-identifies with republicans but the degree of commitment depends on the extent of their conservatism. Those not so solidly conservative are more likely to defect to the Demorats in a landslide year for them (just as Massachusetts democrats did for Reagan in the 80's)

[NorthernDog]

But yes, 1980 especially was somewhat of an aberration in Massachusetts, as it was only the 7th most Democratic state in the nation that year, after usually being one of the 2 most Democratic along with Rhode Island for most of the last 40 years.

Nice analysis NYM.  I've heard a theory that states who have a candidate rejected in the primaries are not enthusiastic for the primary winner.  In '80 Ted Kennedy challenged Carter in the primaries and did a lot of harm to his support in MA.  I think you can see the same phenomenon in AZ in '00, where McCain challenged Bush, or in KS in '88 where Dole challenged Bush, or CA for Ford in '76, when Reagan lost the nomination.  There's ceratinly exception to this-Bill Bradley lost to Gore in '00 but NJ went solidly for Gore-but the theory may explain less than expected vote margins in many cases.

[Ryan]

But yes, 1980 especially was somewhat of an aberration in Massachusetts, as it was only the 7th most Democratic state in the nation that year, after usually being one of the 2 most Democratic along with Rhode Island for most of the last 40 years.

Nice analysis NYM.  I've heard a theory that states who have a candidate rejected in the primaries are not enthusiastic for the primary winner.  In '80 Ted Kennedy challenged Carter in the primaries and did a lot of harm to his support in MA.  I think you can see the same phenomenon in AZ in '00, where McCain challenged Bush, or in KS in '88 where Dole challenged Bush, or CA for Ford in '76, when Reagan lost the nomination.  There's ceratinly exception to this-Bill Bradley lost to Gore in '00 but NJ went solidly for Gore-but the theory may explain less than expected vote margins in many cases.

All too true. This is a factor many of us have neglected. I completely forgot about Kennedy's run in 1980. I was just compiling my 2004 prediction map and while I refused to put Arizona on the tossup list, I was at a loss to explain the anemic GOP % there. Then of course I remembered McCain
Since GWB and him get on well know and 2000 is a long way back I see no probs for GOP in Arizona in 2004.

[KEmperor]

I agree that Arizona will probably end up Republican in 2004, but it's not a sure thing.  Most of those states are still toss-ups.

[NorthernDog]

Here's another odd election:
1968 Nixon/Humphrey/Wallace
A lot of people (who should know better) where I live say that Humphrey lost by than than 1%. They also state that if the campaign had lasted 5 more days Humphrey would have won.   These comments cause two question in my mind:
1. Why do so many people ignore the electoral vote when referring to elections? In '68 is was as follows:Nixon 301, Humphrey 191, Wallace 46.
2.Does it make any sense at all to say "If the campaign had last longer HHH would have won"?
Was Johnson trying to end the VietNam war?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Wallace certainly cost Humphrey the election and North Vietnam was on the verge of collapse by 1968(a little known fact).

[dazzleman]

If the right combination of states had shifted from Nixon over to Humphrey (possibly Alaska, Missouri, New Jersey, Illinois, or some combination) Humphrey would have won.  I have not done a detailed analysis, but it probably would have taken 200,000 votes, or maybe a little more, for this to happen.

The presence of Wallace also raised the possibility that nobody would get a majority in the electoral college, in which case the election would have gone to the House of Representatives.  The House would probably have elected Humphrey, since Democrats were in the majority.

LBJ tried to throw the election to Humphrey by announcing a bombing halt of North Vietnam several days before the election, and implying that he was on the verge of a real breakthrough for peace.  Of course, this was not the case, but the idea was to time it so as to raise hopes with the voters just as they were going to the polls, and also so that they would have already voted before they figure out it was bogus.  It almost worked.

If North Vietnam had really been ready to collapse in 1968, Johnson blew it with the bombing halt, taking pressure off them while they were at their weakest.  Ironically, a similar thing happened with Nixon in 1972, when he eased bombing of North Vietnam before the election as a result of "progress" in the peace talks.

I think actually that Humphrey would have won if the election had been held a couple of days earlier.  By election day, it was becoming clearer that Johnson's move was a cynical ploy, and the South Vietnamese government had already declined to support the position that Johnson was taking, thereby undermining his credibility.  Nixon supposedly had a hand in this, as he had known for some time in advance that Johnson would try such a move.

What I would find interesting about that election is an analysis of those counties in the south that had voted for LBJ in 1964 and Wallace in 1968.  How widespread was this shift, and what caused it?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In 1964 the Deep South went very strongly for Goldwater and in 1968 went very strongly for Wallace.

The biggest shift in the Deep South was from Republican to Wallace.

However this was reversed in the Upper South where there was a big shift from Democrat to Wallace(Tennessee is the best example).

[dazzleman]

The shift in the upper south was what I was thinking about.

States such as Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina, that had voted pretty strongly for LBJ in 1964 shifted over to Nixon in 1968.

It appears that in these states, certain voters who had supported LBJ and the Democrats in 1968 switched to Wallace in 1968, allowing Nixon to narrowly carry these states in a 3-way race.

I would find a switch from LBJ to Nixon easier to understand in light of the failures and problems of the Johnson administration in the 1964-68 period, but a shift to Wallace from Johnson seems like a more radical change in attitude.  After all, we're not talking about people who voted for Goldwater in 1964 voting for Wallace in 1968.

Maybe it was a backlash against the urban riots of the mid and late 1960s, or the already apparent abuses and failures of the Great Society programs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It has to be remembered that Wallace was a populist and was able to get people with very different attitudes to vote for him(especially in 1982 after he admitted he had been "wrong about race" when both the Bubbas and the Blacks voted for him), and he was able to tap into a lot of anger in some areas.

It's also false to say that people that voted for Wallace voted GOP afterwards, in the Upper South where Wallace polled best is where the Dems poll best nowadays.

[Saratoga2DM]

1968 was the year that created a Conservative, Republican dynasty in the White House that has lasted to this day.  The Vietnam War, race riots, LBJ bowing out, and the RFK assassination had put the Democrats on the defensive.   And the Chicago riots outside the Democratic convention made Humphrey's chances very slim.  

Antagonism over the war was one of the reasons that put Nixon in the White House.  But another reason why he won was because the Republicans adopted the "SOUTHERN STRATEGY" which was meant to attract white Southern voters who were angered by the 1964 Civil Rights act.  

Despite Wallace's presence in the 1968 election (he got 5 deep South states), Future elections (except in 1976 Carter got the entire South, sans Virginia) proved that the Republican Party's strategy worked.  The 2000 election gave them the entire South (I am still very skeptical about Florida).    

LBJ knew this would happen after he did the right thing by signing the 1964 Civil Rights acts.  After signing the bill, Johnson leaned over to an aide and reportedly said: "I've just handed the South to the Republicans for a generation."  

[Nym90]

Well, Dave has done the math...http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe1968whatif.html

Although it's worth noting that his "No Electoral Majority" What-If isn't the "best" possible one. At least in my opinion, no disrespect intended on your hard work Dave ;-). It relies on a faithless Nixon elector in North Carolina still casting his ballot for Wallace even though in this case it costs Nixon the election (which this elector probably would not have done), and besides, only Missouri and Ohio are required for Humphrey to win rather than Missouri, New Jersey, and Alaska (which requires a greater percentage shift to Humphrey in Alaska than would be required in Ohio).

[Beet]

Speaking of the Chicago riots in 1968, what are the chances for a more peaceful, but still sizeable, demonstration outside the Republican convention in New York, September of next year? New York has probably more Democrats around it than any other city, but Rove chose the city because he thinks he can exploit the 9/11 attack to favor his candidate.

[Ryan]

The Difference is in WHO will do the rioting......in 1968 it showcased the schisms in the DEMOCRATIC base. In 2004 it will be nutcase far left activists making fools of themselves (and showing exactly what Bush is up against)

U think Karl Rove hasnt factored the demonstrations into his calculations??? ??

Speaking of the Chicago riots in 1968, what are the chances for a more peaceful, but still sizeable, demonstration outside the Republican convention in New York, September of next year? New York has probably more Democrats around it than any other city, but Rove chose the city because he thinks he can exploit the 9/11 attack to favor his candidate.

[Saratoga2DM]

Personally, I think the Republicans using New York as their convention city in order to exploit the 9-11 issue is going to backfire on them.  But the only thing we can do is wait and see.  

Meanwhile I'll be watching the Democratic convention in Boston.

 

[WONK]

Maybe Dems use of the revolution-history rich Boston is based on an alterior motive (trying to look mega-patriotic to average voter, who may see Dem presidential candidate rhetoric a little over the top)

I personally like the fact that Reps are heading straight into the lions den for the convention.  It might serve the Dems better if, rather than going to the safe haven of Boston, they went to a midwestern or southern city and tried to show average voter it's still safe to vote Dem, rather than having a love-in in Boston.

Great points by Ryan.

[NorthernDog]

It might serve the Dems better if, rather than going to the safe haven of Boston, they went to a midwestern or southern city and tried to show average voter it's still safe to vote Dem, rather than having a love-in in Boston.

I think Boston was picked becasue of Kennedy's intense lobbying.  I had heard the Clintons wanted NYC and behind the scenes it got ugly.  One of the 2 parties should pick the Midwest or West for once-Minneapolis, St Louis, even Denver would be a nice change.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How about East St Louis?

[Paul]

Hey, I'm a local, and trust me, you don't want to go to East St. Louis unless absolutely necessary!  Around here, "the East Side" is known for high crime, violence, poverty...you name it.  The Dems do not want to use that locale for exactly that reason.