Will Obama break another record??

[old timey villain]

How's this for a political rule- Since 1916, an incumbent president has never been reelected a second time with a smaller PV percentage than he did the first time. When they're up for reelection, they either win by a bigger margin or they lose.

Some examples:

Eisenhower 1952: 55%
Eisenhower 1956: 57%

Reagan 1980: 50%
Reagan 1984: 58%

Clinton 1992: 43%
Clinton 1996: 49%

You could argue that FDR doesn't fit this trend, since he won by less his third and fourth times running, but his tenure was unprecedented.

So if Obama wins, will he be the first president since Wilson to gain a second term with less support than he did the first time? The polls look like it.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Yes. His heavy Cult of Personality in 2008 no longer exists.

[Mr. Morden]

This has pointed out here before, though I can't find the thread.  Wilson also had a higher % of the popular vote his second time around, so I think you have to go all the way back to Andrew Jackson or so to find the last time an incumbent president won a second term with a smaller %age of the popular vote than the first time.

EDIT: And if you want the last time an incumbent president won a second term with both a reduced popular *and* electoral vote %age, I think you have to go back to James Madison....though I don't think every state had a popular vote tally back then.

[J. J.]

If he wins, I think both his popular vote total and his electoral vote will be lower.

[NHI]

His popular and electoral vote will be smaller if he wins. I think cracking 50% is going to be tough for either candidate, barring some game changer. E.g. Economy improves or fails drastically.

[old timey villain]

This has pointed out here before, though I can't find the thread.  Wilson also had a higher % of the popular vote his second time around, so I think you have to go all the way back to Andrew Jackson or so to find the last time an incumbent president won a second term with a smaller %age of the popular vote than the first time.

EDIT: And if you want the last time an incumbent president won a second term with both a reduced popular *and* electoral vote %age, I think you have to go back to James Madison....though I don't think every state had a popular vote tally back then.

Oh, you're right. I should have clarified. Wilson did win a larger percentage of the popular vote in 1916, but a smaller share of the electoral vote. Wilson basically dominated the map in 1912 due to Taft and Roosevelt splitting the Republican vote.

I guess that makes the trend even stronger. So if Obama does win with less than 53% of the vote, he'll break a 200 year streak.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Eh, it's kind of a dumb rule.

[pbrower2a]

How's this for a political rule- Since 1916, an incumbent president has never been reelected a second time with a smaller PV percentage than he did the first time. When they're up for reelection, they either win by a bigger margin or they lose.

Some examples:

Eisenhower 1952: 55%
Eisenhower 1956: 57%

Reagan 1980: 50%
Reagan 1984: 58%

Clinton 1992: 43%
Clinton 1996: 49%

You could argue that FDR doesn't fit this trend, since he won by less his third and fourth times running, but his tenure was unprecedented.

So if Obama wins, will he be the first president since Wilson to gain a second term with less support than he did the first time? The polls look like it.

You missed even Dubya, who won by a bigger margin even if he should have been defeated. if we had only known back then the damage that he was doing to America...

Dubya, 2000  48%
Dubya, 2004  51% 

If it is any consolation the 3% gain was weak for someone who did much campaigning (Eisenhower didn't campaign much in 1956).

This is a diverse lot. In theory one expects an incumbent President to achieve his promises while convincing some who didn't vote for him the first time that he isn't that bad. He satisfies his original voters or he fails completely -- like Carter or Hoover. If people tire of the agenda, like the third-term-in-all-but-name of Ronald Reagan that the elder Bush tried to win, then incumbency is no asset.

Hoover ran on the economic achievements of his predecessors -- "a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot" in 1928, and had nothing to run on in 1932. Carter made promises of some administrative reforms including zero-based budgeting and didn't get them. To win re-election he had to make fresh promises to win over new constituencies, and such is impossible.

President Obama wins by a larger margin if

(1) significant third-party candidates cut into right-leaning votes at the expense of Mitt Romney. Just take a look at how Virgil Goode does in Virginia. Goode seems to be a good cultural match at least for the Mountain South -- far better than either Obama or Romney. If he runs in Georgia and Missouri he siphons away enough right-leaning votes in those states to flip them to President Obama.

(2) Romney collapses as a candidate. We just haven't seen that yet, and I am not going to call that until I see it.

...Barack Obama was a horrible match for the political culture of much of America and still is. It is hard to imagine any Presidential candidate winning by as large majorities in so many states and losing by as large majorities in so many. He can still win while some of the huge margins by which he won in 2008 get pared (he won by 20% or more in eleven states and  by 15% to 20% in six others), he loses by similar margins in states that he lost by 14.9% or more, and campaigns effectively enough in the swing states to win what he must. He could conceivably gain electoral votes while losing some of the huge margins that he won by in California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.             

[Vosem]

You missed even Dubya, who won by a bigger margin even if he should have been defeated.

No, he most certainly should not have.

if we had only known back then the damage that he was doing to America...

Like what?

Dubya, 2000  48%
Dubya, 2004  51% 

If it is any consolation the 3% gain was weak for someone who did much campaigning (Eisenhower didn't campaign much in 1956).

That's why Eisenhower gained less than Dubya did.

This is a diverse lot. In theory one expects an incumbent President to achieve his promises while convincing some who didn't vote for him the first time that he isn't that bad. He satisfies his original voters or he fails completely -- like Carter or Hoover. If people tire of the agenda, like the third-term-in-all-but-name of Ronald Reagan that the elder Bush tried to win, then incumbency is no asset.

Well, isn't that how the elder Bush won California and Illinois and Vermont and the Presidency and sh**t?

Hoover ran on the economic achievements of his predecessors -- "a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot" in 1928, and had nothing to run on in 1932. Carter made promises of some administrative reforms including zero-based budgeting and didn't get them. To win re-election he had to make fresh promises to win over new constituencies, and such is impossible.

When you put it like that, every President who doesn't accomplish everything he promised in his first election loses (if that was so, Obama would lose a landslide). Carter and Hoover both lost because of the economy, not because of zero-based budgeting or whateverthefock.

President Obama wins by a larger margin if

Obama will almost certainly not win by a larger margin. The chances of it are infinitesimal.

(1) significant third-party candidates cut into right-leaning votes at the expense of Mitt Romney. Just take a look at how Virgil Goode does in Virginia. Goode seems to be a good cultural match at least for the Mountain South -- far better than either Obama or Romney. If he runs in Georgia and Missouri he siphons away enough right-leaning votes in those states to flip them to President Obama.

Polls always overstate the support of third-party candidates. They can only make a difference in a really close election or if they get invited to the debates. In that sense, Johnson is a much greater threat than Goode (Goode mathematically cannot win, he's not on enough ballots, and in that sense he won't get invited to the debate, period).

(2) Romney collapses as a candidate. We just haven't seen that yet, and I am not going to call that until I see it.

It won't happen. Romney is a professional candidate and you have to remember 40-45% of the country goddamn hates Barack Obama and will vote against him no matter what; the number for Obama is something like 25-30%. The remainder mostly kind of like Obama. If Romney can sway them (which he should be able to do if he has more money), than he can win, a landslide.

...Barack Obama was a horrible match for the political culture of much of America and still is.

Not really. He won, remember?

It is hard to imagine any Presidential candidate winning by as large majorities in so many states and losing by as large majorities in so many.

Not really; the trend of polarization has been much commented on and it was much worse at, say, the turn of the century (1900). It was imagined and it was not surprising.

He can still win while some of the huge margins by which he won in 2008 get pared (he won by 20% or more in eleven states and  by 15% to 20% in six others), he loses by similar margins in states that he lost by 14.9% or more, and campaigns effectively enough in the swing states to win what he must. He could conceivably gain electoral votes while losing some of the huge margins that he won by in California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.             

Yes, but there doesn't seem to be a coherent reason for those particular states to trend heavily anti-Obama, is there? I can just as logically say he can lose lots of votes in swing states. When you ignore logic, you can say whatever you want.

[WhyteRain]

@Vosem

Excellent comment.  So I don't have to.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Obama's likelier than not at this point to do what's being described.

[Penelope]

It won't happen. Romney is a professional candidate and you have to remember 40-45% of the country goddamn hates Barack Obama and will vote against him no matter what; the number for Obama is something like 25-30%. The remainder mostly kind of like Obama. If Romney can sway them (which he should be able to do if he has more money), than he can win, a landslide.

Can you please tell me more about the future? I know it might screw with the time-stream but I'd really like to know some things and now you've really got me curious.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Obama according to Karl Rove's map was expected to win OH,VA,CO, and NV but NC,IN and NEB-2 came late breaking and obviously he maximized the black turnout in NC and IN due to the protracted Democratic primary with Clinton.  He may win with a smaller PV but  he is winning the states he has to this time-blue wall of 272 electoral votes.

[old timey villain]

Other two term presidents

Roosevelt 1932: 57%
Roosevelt 1936: 61%

Kennedy 1960: 49.7%
Johnson 1964: 61%

( I choose to include '60 and '64 in this trend because Kennedy was killed less than a year before the 1964 election. As a result, many of the votes for Johnson were also a vote in the memory of JFK. This can be debated of course.)

Nixon 1968: 43%
Nixon 1972: 61%

Bush 2000: 48%
Bush 2004: 51%

If this trend continues into 2012, one of two things will happen.

Scenario 1) Obama's current lead in the polls proves to be fleeting. Most undecideds and swing voters eventually break for Romney and Obama winds up with a PV similar to his approval ratings- somewhere in the mid to high 40s. Similar to Carter in 1980, who was leading or tied with Reagan until the week before the election. If Romney really goes balls to the wall in October and runs a great campaign, I could see this happening.

Scenario 2) Obama presides over a "new normal" (for now). Unemployment will remain high but Obama holds on to his 2008 coalition and wins over some new swing voters based on the perception that the economy is in fact improving. Obama is trusted to continue the recovery. Also, Romney runs a bad campaign. Most similar (although not very) to the 1984 election. Reagan wins by a larger margin despite a high unemployment rate (7.4%) based on the perception that the country was heading in the right direction.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let's take a good look at the failures.

1988: 53-46
1992: 37-43-19

The Democratic share went down from 1988 to 1992.  Perot's third party played a significant factor is Bush 41's failure to be reelected.

1976: 50-48
1980: 41-50-6

While Reagan won outright in 1980, Carter's margin of victory in 1976 was so small, that any decline was likely going to be fatal, whereas Obama's 53-46 result gives him a cushion that Peanuthead didn't have.

1928: 58-41
1932: 40-57

Having the Great Depression starting on your watch will do that.  If the bubble had waited another year to burst, Obama would be a certain one-termer thanks to the Great Recession, but that's not what happened.

1908: 52-43
1912: 23-42-27

As with the 1988-1992 case, we have a third party option upsetting the results and the winner getting less of the vote than his party did four years earlier.

1884: 48.9-48.3
1888: 48.7-47.8
1892: 46.0-43.0-8.5

Altho Cleveland lost round 2, it was because of the quirks of the electoral college.  He actually increased his popular vote margin of victory in 1888 over 1884.

1836: 51-49
1840: 47-53

As with Carter fourteen decades lower, Van Buren didn't have much of a margin, so pretty much any bump down was going to defeat him.


Anyway, tbecause Obama has a larger margin to work with that and no significant third party to deal with,  if he wins with a lower share of the PV this time, it might be novel, but it won't be noteworthy.

[morgieb]

Yes if he wins.

[ShadowRocket]

I think so. It's hard to see how he could surpass his '08 victory at the moment.

[Vosem]

Can you please tell me more about the future? I know it might screw with the time-stream but I'd really like to know some things and now you've really got me curious.

That woman who wrote Fifty Shades is going to write more and become famous and awful.