was 1976 the last election where
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:31:32 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)
  was 1976 the last election where
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: was 1976 the last election where  (Read 5816 times)
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,825
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 22, 2011, 11:34:45 AM »

a lot of counties and states that I would never assume would vote for a democratic, did and a lot of counties and states that I would never assume would vote for a republican, also did.
Logged
feeblepizza
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,910
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.45, S: -0.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2011, 12:08:02 PM »

It was also the last one where Democrats won the Deep South and where Republicans won the Northeast.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2011, 12:30:49 PM »

The Deep South wasn't too unexpected; Carter's southern roots were a major selling point.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2011, 12:31:24 PM »

It was also the last one where Democrats won the Deep South and where Republicans won the Northeast.

The GOP did not win the NE. They won a few states there, but as a whole, did badly in the region.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2011, 01:06:48 PM »

It was also the last one where Democrats won the Deep South and where Republicans won the Northeast.

Carter carried the Northeast 86-36.



He also carried the North 132-104.



And he carried the Union 172-165.

Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2011, 10:53:09 AM »

As I've said before, its amazing to compare how many states were actually competative back then before the hard divide into red, blue and purple states. Damn few states in 76 were a rout for either candidate.

A very sad trend. Sad
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,891
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2011, 10:56:53 AM »

As I've said before, its amazing to compare how many states were actually competative back then before the hard divide into red, blue and purple states. Damn few states in 76 were a rout for either candidate.

A very sad trend. Sad

True. Political polarization in current elections is quite disgusting.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,851
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2011, 11:52:13 AM »

Both candidates were honest? Yes.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,279
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2011, 05:27:34 PM »

Honestly I believe it was the gaffe by Ford in the second debate...if there had been no gaffe then I believe that Ford would have been president...
...And there'd be no Conservative revolution, except maybe in the late eighties (1988) or the nineties (1992). But it wouldn't be the one we know today. Heck, the Conservative President in question might even have the bragging point of a surplus then...
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2011, 05:44:38 PM »

Is there more polarization?

States where one party got 55% or more of the 2 party vote-

1976-



8 Democratic States, representing 85 EVs with D.C.
6 Republican states,  representing 25 EVs.
36  Swing States, representing 428 EVs.

2004-



8 Democratic States, representing 146 EVs with D.C.
20 Republican states,  representing 183 EVs.
22  Swing States, representing 209 EVs.

Is that much more polarized?
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2011, 06:51:45 PM »

It's hard to find patterns to the 1976 county map outside the South. It seems more of urban and rural voting Democratic and suburbs voting Republican, than any ideological reason.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,891
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2011, 03:52:23 AM »


Yes.

Here's another way to see it. Here are the States that differ from the national PV margin by more than 10 points for either party.


1976 :



Carter : 78
Ford : 39
Competitive : 421


2008 :



McCain : 160
Obama : 157
Competitive : 221
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2011, 07:27:03 AM »

Honestly I believe it was the gaffe by Ford in the second debate...if there had been no gaffe then I believe that Ford would have been president...
...And there'd be no Conservative revolution, except maybe in the late eighties (1988) or the nineties (1992). But it wouldn't be the one we know today. Heck, the Conservative President in question might even have the bragging point of a surplus then...

Yes, because slashing upper income tax rates as opposed to raising them has shown to be EVER so effective in reducing the deficit. Roll Eyes
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 02, 2011, 10:25:13 PM »

Yes, there was greater variance in state-by-state results in 2004 than 1976, but I think that says a lot more about 1976 than it does about 2004. The default in US politics has been polarisation, 1976 is one of the outliers. Just take a look at pretty much every election from 1856 to 1972 - 1976 is a product of a slow regional realignment, where states are "crossing over" and hence will be competitive for a time.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,891
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2011, 01:21:50 PM »
« Edited: April 03, 2011, 01:24:26 PM by Lionel Jospin Revivalist »

Yes, there was greater variance in state-by-state results in 2004 than 1976, but I think that says a lot more about 1976 than it does about 2004. The default in US politics has been polarisation, 1976 is one of the outliers. Just take a look at pretty much every election from 1856 to 1972 - 1976 is a product of a slow regional realignment, where states are "crossing over" and hence will be competitive for a time.

Are you sure ? Here is 1960 :



Nixon : 68
Kennedy : 61
Competitive : 408
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2011, 07:06:45 AM »

Yes, there was greater variance in state-by-state results in 2004 than 1976, but I think that says a lot more about 1976 than it does about 2004. The default in US politics has been polarisation, 1976 is one of the outliers. Just take a look at pretty much every election from 1856 to 1972 - 1976 is a product of a slow regional realignment, where states are "crossing over" and hence will be competitive for a time.

Are you sure ? Here is 1960 :



Nixon : 68
Kennedy : 61
Competitive : 408

It's in the same time period, in a period of realignment. (The South began to realign before the Civil Rights Act).
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2011, 08:52:54 AM »

It's funny that 1960 is brought up as an example because it, along with 1976, are the two post-World War II elections where, IMO, the candidates were the most similar to each other. Both also happened to be decided by fairly close margins. The closest we have to that now would be the 2000 election, a near 50-50 split with similar dynamics to both 1960 and 1976.



Gore: 52
Bush: 65
Competitive: 421

So using Antonio V's formula of counting states that differ from the national PV margin by more than 10 points for either party, the most recent election with a similar result to 1960 was 2000, with more competitive electoral votes. The difference between the two candidates in PV was also almost exactly the same, as well as having a two-term VP heading the ticket for each incumbent party losing despite the popularity of the incumbent President. Some states are just "swingier" than others are, as 2008 shows.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,891
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2011, 04:06:51 AM »

Napoleon, your map is not made in the way mine was. It's not the variation from the candidate's score that you must count, but the variation from his margin of victory. My criterion is twice more restrictive than yours.

And here is the map we get :



Gore : 168
Bush : 146
Competitive : 224

Basically as polarized as 2008.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,891
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2011, 04:09:44 AM »

It's in the same time period, in a period of realignment. (The South began to realign before the Civil Rights Act).

So 1976 was not an outlier : it was part of a long period during which politics were less polarized. The reason of the lack of polarization during this period was not my point.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2011, 04:37:31 AM »

Antonio, the popular vote margin was less than one percentage point. It was essentially a tie.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,891
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2011, 05:59:14 AM »

Antonio, the popular vote margin was less than one percentage point. It was essentially a tie.

So ? What does it change ? Huh
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2011, 06:08:35 AM »

Antonio, the popular vote margin was less than one percentage point. It was essentially a tie.

So ? What does it change ? Huh

58% in a given state would be R+10 or D+10.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,891
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2011, 06:11:06 AM »

Antonio, the popular vote margin was less than one percentage point. It was essentially a tie.

So ? What does it change ? Huh

58% in a given state would be R+10 or D+10.

No. Margins, not % votes. 53% in a given State would be R+10 or D+10 (if the opponent gets 43%).

Don't reason in terms of percentage, but in terms of margin.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2011, 06:15:40 AM »
« Edited: April 05, 2011, 06:21:24 AM by Napoleon »

Your wording is/ was very confusing.  I took todiffer from the margin by ten as to add or subtract ten. You're wanting the margin itself to be within ten, which would be a difference OF ten or less.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,891
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2011, 06:21:53 AM »

Your wording is/ was very confusing. To differ from the margin by ten would be to add or subtract ten. You're wanting the margin itself to be within ten, which would be a difference OF.

Ok, let's put it that way.

The election is a democrat 55/35 win. 55-35=20. It's a D+20 win.

A State gave 60 to the democrat and 29 to the republican. It's a D+31 win.

31-20=11. This State qualifies as "not competitive", because the margin differs from the national margin.

Instead, you count only the democrat's percentage. 60-55=5, thus you qualify the State as "competitive". And this method is problematic because it doesn't take into account biases brought by an exceptionally strong/weak third party performance.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
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 0.063 seconds with 12 queries.