Least interesting U.S. Presidential elections (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 01:52:50 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Least interesting U.S. Presidential elections (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Least interesting U.S. Presidential elections  (Read 4597 times)
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


« on: January 28, 2011, 11:48:51 PM »

Yes, I'm aware of the interesting number paradox nature of the question here Tongue

I think there's a great deal of overlap between this category and "non-close, non-landslide elections." If the election is never really in doubt but doesn't break any records, that makes it boring.

I nominate 1996 as the most uninteresting recent election. 1792 and 1820 as uncontested elections already did what 1789 did, so I'd nominate them jointly as the all time most uninteresting. (Though you could make a case that "the first re-election" and "the last uncontested re-election" are interesting enough).
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2011, 01:35:49 AM »
« Edited: January 29, 2011, 01:39:32 AM by Nichlemn »

In 20th Century, 1956 can be a good choice of a boring election.

Forgot about that one. I'd rank it above 1996 because it even had the same major candidates. As a general rule, incumbent elections are less interesting than open seats because there's usually only one major nomination battle, the race is less likely to be close, the states tend to vote similarly and when the incumbent wins the status quo is preserved. The one thing going for them is the widespread knowledge of the incumbent could potentially make the horse race more exciting (by having a true Hero/Villain to root for/against).

2012 will probably be pretty boring too. Of course, like every election it will be spun as "one of the most important elections of our lifetimes". (That was largely the motivation for starting this thread, my distaste at this "above average" effect).

Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2011, 01:42:08 AM »

I don't think 2004 will be considered all that interesting in the grand scheme of things.

Agree. Then and probably now, people think it was ("What about Iraq? What about Swiftboating? What about the election irregularities?") But historically, those are pretty tame compared to some oft-forgotten 19th century campaigns.
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2011, 12:55:08 AM »

Oh, one interesting thing about 1956 is that that the Missouri bellwether was broken. (Now that it has again, though, it loses some points).

I think reference points like these can make elections interesting. For instance, Wikipedia refers to 1964 in many articles as the last time a number of states voted Democratic. Of course, any election will have some milestones like this, but some are going to have more than others. This also produces a bias towards towards semi-recent elections. (1996 may well have been the last election for a long time in which the Democrats carry any of WV/KY/TN/AR/LA, but since there haven't been many elections since, it's not currently impressive). On the flip side, go too far back and it's probable that a voting streak has been broken at least once.



Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2011, 10:12:01 AM »

in fact of the 900 counties Adlai Stevenson won in 1956... only 209 of those counties voted for Obama! Its surprising that a county that would vote for a democrat who lost that badly, would then vote for a republican who lost by 7 points. Its almost like the Stevenson McCain counties are Anti-Bellwether.

Speaking of realignment, go back a bit further: of the 18 states that Lincoln won in 1860, exactly zero voted for McCain 148 years later - the first time this has ever happened for a Republican nominee (even those who lost in landslides).
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2011, 10:52:07 PM »

in fact of the 900 counties Adlai Stevenson won in 1956... only 209 of those counties voted for Obama! Its surprising that a county that would vote for a democrat who lost that badly, would then vote for a republican who lost by 7 points. Its almost like the Stevenson McCain counties are Anti-Bellwether.

Speaking of realignment, go back a bit further: of the 18 states that Lincoln won in 1860, exactly zero voted for McCain 148 years later - the first time this has ever happened for a Republican nominee (even those who lost in landslides).

Goldwater 1964?

Oh yeah. I was thinking of Taft and Landon when thinking of the biggest Republican losses.

Still, I think it's pretty interesting that McCain didn't win a single Lincoln state despite not losing in a landslide.
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2011, 12:20:25 AM »


1968? Johnson dropping out, Kennedy entering and then getting assassinated, turmoil at the Democratic National Convention, George Wallace, return of Nixon?
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 0.029 seconds with 12 queries.