Settle It: Would Walker win Wisconsin?

[Mr. Illini]

Well?

[Bull Moose Base]

You really expect anyone to answer this question without a metaphorical threat of violence?

Fine, we'll do it your way: no.

[Never]

Generally, yes. Against most opponents, he would probably win it by a few points. Against Hillary, it would probably be a closely watched tossup. If Walker defeated Hillary nationally, he would probably win Wisconsin, but given the polarized attitude in America today, Walker's home-state advantage would probably evaporate if Hillary wins the presidency.

[pbrower2a]

Generally, yes. Against most opponents, he would probably win it by a few points. Against Hillary, it would probably be a closely watched tossup. If Walker defeated Hillary nationally, he would probably win Wisconsin, but given the polarized attitude in America today, Walker's home-state advantage would probably evaporate if Hillary wins the presidency.

The home-state (Favorite Son) advantage applies only to someone seen positively in the state. Example: George McGovern fared much better as a Presidential nominee in South Dakota than in the US as a whole in 1972 during a 49-state romp by Nixon. Barry Goldwater won Arizona in 1964 while losing states (Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alaska) that have never gone for a Democratic nominee since then. Walter Mondale barely won Minnesota while losing everything else.

He has not won over people who voted against him in 2010. If he fares better than in 2010 in Wisconsin's gubernatorial election, then such will reflect that more of his opponents have left the state or that people moving in from elsewhere find him an attractive politician.

[dmmidmi]

What's the difference between "Yes in most cases" and "Only if not facing Hillary"?

[Never]

Generally, yes. Against most opponents, he would probably win it by a few points. Against Hillary, it would probably be a closely watched tossup. If Walker defeated Hillary nationally, he would probably win Wisconsin, but given the polarized attitude in America today, Walker's home-state advantage would probably evaporate if Hillary wins the presidency.

The home-state (Favorite Son) advantage applies only to someone seen positively in the state. Example: George McGovern fared much better as a Presidential nominee in South Dakota than in the US as a whole in 1972 during a 49-state romp by Nixon. Barry Goldwater won Arizona in 1964 while losing states (Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alaska) that have never gone for a Democratic nominee since then. Walter Mondale barely won Minnesota while losing everything else.

He has not won over people who voted against him in 2010. If he fares better than in 2010 in Wisconsin's gubernatorial election, then such will reflect that more of his opponents have left the state or that people moving in from elsewhere find him an attractive politician.

You make a good point with the implication that midterm electorates don't accurately represent the political leanings of states. No one would really expect Christie to win New Jersey in a presidential election by the margin that he was re-elected governor, and I understand that we can't read too much into Walker's victories in Wisconsin. However, by that metric, we can't really tell how most governors would fare with presidential electorates.

However, if Walker wins a statewide gubernatorial election for the third consecutive time this November, wouldn't that mean that at least a slim majority of Wisconsinites like him? Even though at least 45% of the state's residents probably dislike Walker, that wouldn't really matter if he can get 50% + 1 of the voters there to side with him. If some of his opponents have left Wisconsin, that's really beneficial to his chances in 2016.

[TDAS04]

Both options 2 & 3 are correct, voted for option 3.  He could certainly win Wisconsin if the GOP's national performance is decent, but I would give him less than a 50/50 shot.  Wisconsin would probably vote for the winner of the national popular vote with Walker as the candidate, but the state still voted to the left of the national average in 2012, even with Ryan on the GOP ticket.

[pbrower2a]

Generally, yes. Against most opponents, he would probably win it by a few points. Against Hillary, it would probably be a closely watched tossup. If Walker defeated Hillary nationally, he would probably win Wisconsin, but given the polarized attitude in America today, Walker's home-state advantage would probably evaporate if Hillary wins the presidency.

The home-state (Favorite Son) advantage applies only to someone seen positively in the state. Example: George McGovern fared much better as a Presidential nominee in South Dakota than in the US as a whole in 1972 during a 49-state romp by Nixon. Barry Goldwater won Arizona in 1964 while losing states (Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alaska) that have never gone for a Democratic nominee since then. Walter Mondale barely won Minnesota while losing everything else.

He has not won over people who voted against him in 2010. If he fares better than in 2010 in Wisconsin's gubernatorial election, then such will reflect that more of his opponents have left the state or that people moving in from elsewhere find him an attractive politician.

You make a good point with the implication that midterm electorates don't accurately represent the political leanings of states. No one would really expect Christie to win New Jersey in a presidential election by the margin that he was re-elected governor, and I understand that we can't read too much into Walker's victories in Wisconsin. However, by that metric, we can't really tell how most governors would fare with presidential electorates.

However, if Walker wins a statewide gubernatorial election for the third consecutive time this November, wouldn't that mean that at least a slim majority of Wisconsinites like him? Even though at least 45% of the state's residents probably dislike Walker, that wouldn't really matter if he can get 50% + 1 of the voters there to side with him. If some of his opponents have left Wisconsin, that's really beneficial to his chances in 2016.

People can vote for whom they dislike personally -- think of Nixon in 1972.  

He must of course win the 2014 gubernatorial election to have any credibility as a Presidential candidate. If he does win the 2014 election he is catapulted ahead of most (if not all) potential Republican nominees for President. He would show that he can stand up to organized labor, environmentalists, and other liberal groups and bring a reactionary agenda successfully and perhaps even permanently to a state renowned for liberal tendencies. He might have just the thing to push such states as Michigan, Iowa, and even Minnesota to cheap-labor crony capitalism as in Texas. He would force Hillary Clinton to make desperate efforts to make high-risk efforts to win difficult states.  

Yes, I hate him. He would be a horrible President, probably more dangerous than Dubya because he is more competent and fanatical. His Presidency would not implode as rapidly unless there were a 1929-style market crash that keeps going and going. He might be an excellent defender of the Second Amendment, but not of other parts of the Bill of Rights.. If I were about thirty years younger he would make me contemplate learning some not-so-obvious foreign language -- let us say Slovak.  

But if he is defeated in the 2014 gubernatorial election he is through. He is best described as "highly contingent" as a potential nominee for President.  

[IceSpear]

Against Hillary he'd be the underdog there. Against most others it would probably be a toss up.

[henster]

It'd be like 2004, if he wins it'd be barely no more 2 points.

[Never]

Generally, yes. Against most opponents, he would probably win it by a few points. Against Hillary, it would probably be a closely watched tossup. If Walker defeated Hillary nationally, he would probably win Wisconsin, but given the polarized attitude in America today, Walker's home-state advantage would probably evaporate if Hillary wins the presidency.

The home-state (Favorite Son) advantage applies only to someone seen positively in the state. Example: George McGovern fared much better as a Presidential nominee in South Dakota than in the US as a whole in 1972 during a 49-state romp by Nixon. Barry Goldwater won Arizona in 1964 while losing states (Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alaska) that have never gone for a Democratic nominee since then. Walter Mondale barely won Minnesota while losing everything else.

He has not won over people who voted against him in 2010. If he fares better than in 2010 in Wisconsin's gubernatorial election, then such will reflect that more of his opponents have left the state or that people moving in from elsewhere find him an attractive politician.

You make a good point with the implication that midterm electorates don't accurately represent the political leanings of states. No one would really expect Christie to win New Jersey in a presidential election by the margin that he was re-elected governor, and I understand that we can't read too much into Walker's victories in Wisconsin. However, by that metric, we can't really tell how most governors would fare with presidential electorates.

However, if Walker wins a statewide gubernatorial election for the third consecutive time this November, wouldn't that mean that at least a slim majority of Wisconsinites like him? Even though at least 45% of the state's residents probably dislike Walker, that wouldn't really matter if he can get 50% + 1 of the voters there to side with him. If some of his opponents have left Wisconsin, that's really beneficial to his chances in 2016.

People can vote for whom they dislike personally -- think of Nixon in 1972.  

He must of course win the 2014 gubernatorial election to have any credibility as a Presidential candidate. If he does win the 2014 election he is catapulted ahead of most (if not all) potential Republican nominees for President. He would show that he can stand up to organized labor, environmentalists, and other liberal groups and bring a reactionary agenda successfully and perhaps even permanently to a state renowned for liberal tendencies. He might have just the thing to push such states as Michigan, Iowa, and even Minnesota to cheap-labor crony capitalism as in Texas. He would force Hillary Clinton to make desperate efforts to make high-risk efforts to win difficult states.  

Yes, I hate him. He would be a horrible President, probably more dangerous than Dubya because he is more competent and fanatical. His Presidency would not implode as rapidly unless there were a 1929-style market crash that keeps going and going. He might be an excellent defender of the Second Amendment, but not of other parts of the Bill of Rights.. If I were about thirty years younger he would make me contemplate learning some not-so-obvious foreign language -- let us say Slovak.  

But if he is defeated in the 2014 gubernatorial election he is through. He is best described as "highly contingent" as a potential nominee for President.  

Well, I suppose some people can dislike a candidate and still vote for them, but that's probably a select group. There are quite a few plausible Republican candidates who I could not vote for due to my personal dislike of them, and I suspect that there are probably many who feel that way. President Obama did win because people reasonably liked him more than Romney.

Yes, Walker being re-elected this November would very much legitimize the implementation of a conservative agenda in states that lean Democrat. He could push for many Midwestern states in a manner that some other Republicans would find difficult. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is very strong, and we should not deny that, so we might see a huge clash in 2016 should there be a Clinton versus Walker election.

You know what, it is definitely okay to have strong feelings against Walker (I have a penchant for stating the obvious, but I still thought I should say that). You seem to have deeply held views on the issues, but not only that, you justified them, and even though you are coming from a liberal standpoint, I can appreciate what you bring to the table. Generally, I think opposition can often be a good thing to maintain freedom in America, even if it is against politicians that I like, such as Walker. You have an interesting perspective on his possible handling of the Bill of Rights, and are probably on to something there.

Walker is probably a high-risk/high-reward candidate. He can probably win his home-state, but it seems unclear how much he would win by. In Wisconsin, I think he could get very well obtain just 49-50% of the vote in the midst of a national victory, or up to 54% (which I think would be his absolute ceiling under any circumstances). Against Hillary, I don't think he would have a blowout by any means.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Really, this all depends on the national climate.

If he wins the election, he likely wins Wisconsin.

[pbrower2a]

Well, I suppose some people can dislike a candidate and still vote for them, but that's probably a select group. There are quite a few plausible Republican candidates who I could not vote for due to my personal dislike of them, and I suspect that there are probably many who feel that way. President Obama did win because people reasonably liked him more than Romney.

Sometimes, gut feelings are right. If President Obama had been promising patronage to anything and everyone who supports him, then conservatives would have a strong case to vote against someone who pointlessly bleeds the treasury to get re-elected. We can't afford that. Demographics say more about how he wins (in 2008 he won by a big margin in the 65 most-densely-populated counties and 'independent cities' in America, and barely lost the rest of America) than anything else. To be sure some of those are all of the Boroughs of New York, Washington DC, Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Baltimore... and that some of the counties contain Detroit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Cleveland, Chicago, Miami, Seattle, Denver, and Indianapolis. Most of the of the 'independent cities among those 65 such places are  in Virginia, which accounts for Richmond and Arlington - but also such comparatively small places as Fredericksburg, Harrisonburg, and tiny Waynesboro. So Barack Obama loses badly in rural America, breaks even in Suburbia, and wins in landslides in urban areas. The next Republican President of the United States will need to have cut into the suburban vote that seems to becoming more urban in its characteristics.

Whatever Barack Obama is, he seems not to be a demagogue. He seems to lose much of the electorate (poorly-educated white people) most vulnerable to the appeals of demagogues. He does well among people with advanced degrees, and in 2008 and 2012 income was one of the weaker indicators of how someone was going to vote for President.  

Like most Democrats I consider Dubya an awful President. I can name several Republicans who, had they become President, would have been far better than he.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the way to prosperity is to make most people poor and to make a small cadre of investors and executives super-rich, then Walker has the ideal solution to economic distress. Maybe one has hunger -- but also people well motivated to work long hours under brutal management in sweatshops. Maybe we would solve many of the questions of highway maintenance by selling off the freeways to profiteers who charge dollar-a-mile tolls to use those roads. Such roads would also have far fewer traffic jams and last longer so that they need fewer repairs. Maybe one could get economic growth  by gutting laws against environmental degradation... only to create moonscapes everywhere and wreck the health of people who endure the air pollution and drink contaminated water. Maybe if management got the right to ban employees from striking or even quitting, then profits would be high.

People would need to be desperate to vote for such. I see Scott Walker as an obedient tool of out-of-state interests who would bleed Wisconsin for quick profits for themselves. He may be no worse than other Governors and Senators elected in 2010, but he has been out in the open about it. I see his resentment toward educated people as a very bad sign -- considering that most of the top politicians in America are attorneys with the requisite BA and law degrees. .      

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you. I may have my opinions on the issues, but I try to keep my understanding of the mechanics of the electoral process as objective as possible. People trip up badly when they say things like "Obama is so awful that I can't see how anyone who can vote for him". I have canvassed, and I heard someone say "How could you support someone that horrible?"  I heard such about Ronald Reagan in 1984, indicating that such folly is possible for either side. The same people fail to understand that if in August 2012 that if Barack Obama was clearly winning every state that had ever voted for Gore or Kerry, Nevada, and had a 50% chance of winning any one of four states (Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Colorado) very different and separated by significant distances, that random chance alone gave Mitt Romney only one chance in 16 of winning.

Romney had to change the dynamics of the campaign. There was no way to craft an appeal that wins one state and loses the others without losing altogether. He had to change the nationwide level of support for him so that he could put states like Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Wisconsin in play. At that he failed. He needed to win Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Colorado, giving Barack Obama a result that he had only one chance of winning all four of in 16 -- and got them all.  

This may surprise you: I do not really want a landslide win by Hillary Clinton.  The last President to win 370 or more electoral votes the first time and not have a troubled Presidency was Dwight Eisenhower. (I could say 360 in the event that Barack Obama turns into a dud).   I want the President to need just about every vote that he got to win election the first time to be re-elected. Political realignments, even if temporary (Carter in 1976) happen under the cover of landslides that allow Presidential arrogance.
  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I concur on that should the Democrats nominate a weak candidate for President. Wisconsin would then be only a small problem for the weak candidate. Strange things can still happen, and I have no desire to suggest some of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The most recent polling of Wisconsin shows Hillary Clinton winning Wisconsin against every imaginable Republican, and decisively.  

[bballrox4717]

Who knows? Walker did pretty well in getting Obama voters to vote for him, but there's no way to really know if those voters would have voted for him over Obama.

My gut says that he makes the state a tossup at best against Hillary, though it really depends on how Walker works as a national candidate.

[bballrox4717]

Who knows? Walker did pretty well in getting Obama voters to vote for him, but there's no way to really know if those voters would have voted for him over Obama.

My gut says that he makes the state a tossup at best against Hillary, though it really depends on how Walker works as a national candidate.

[Mr. Illini]

What's the difference between "Yes in most cases" and "Only if not facing Hillary"?

"Yes" includes cases against Hillary

[MurrayBannerman]

The only case he doesn't is in a loss to Hillary. He takes it everywhere else.

[Eraserhead]

No, in almost all cases.

[Never]

Well, I suppose some people can dislike a candidate and still vote for them, but that's probably a select group. There are quite a few plausible Republican candidates who I could not vote for due to my personal dislike of them, and I suspect that there are probably many who feel that way. President Obama did win because people reasonably liked him more than Romney.

Sometimes, gut feelings are right. If President Obama had been promising patronage to anything and everyone who supports him, then conservatives would have a strong case to vote against someone who pointlessly bleeds the treasury to get re-elected. We can't afford that. Demographics say more about how he wins (in 2008 he won by a big margin in the 65 most-densely-populated counties and 'independent cities' in America, and barely lost the rest of America) than anything else. To be sure some of those are all of the Boroughs of New York, Washington DC, Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Baltimore... and that some of the counties contain Detroit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Cleveland, Chicago, Miami, Seattle, Denver, and Indianapolis. Most of the of the 'independent cities among those 65 such places are  in Virginia, which accounts for Richmond and Arlington - but also such comparatively small places as Fredericksburg, Harrisonburg, and tiny Waynesboro. So Barack Obama loses badly in rural America, breaks even in Suburbia, and wins in landslides in urban areas. The next Republican President of the United States will need to have cut into the suburban vote that seems to becoming more urban in its characteristics.

Whatever Barack Obama is, he seems not to be a demagogue. He seems to lose much of the electorate (poorly-educated white people) most vulnerable to the appeals of demagogues. He does well among people with advanced degrees, and in 2008 and 2012 income was one of the weaker indicators of how someone was going to vote for President.  

Like most Democrats I consider Dubya an awful President. I can name several Republicans who, had they become President, would have been far better than he.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the way to prosperity is to make most people poor and to make a small cadre of investors and executives super-rich, then Walker has the ideal solution to economic distress. Maybe one has hunger -- but also people well motivated to work long hours under brutal management in sweatshops. Maybe we would solve many of the questions of highway maintenance by selling off the freeways to profiteers who charge dollar-a-mile tolls to use those roads. Such roads would also have far fewer traffic jams and last longer so that they need fewer repairs. Maybe one could get economic growth  by gutting laws against environmental degradation... only to create moonscapes everywhere and wreck the health of people who endure the air pollution and drink contaminated water. Maybe if management got the right to ban employees from striking or even quitting, then profits would be high.

People would need to be desperate to vote for such. I see Scott Walker as an obedient tool of out-of-state interests who would bleed Wisconsin for quick profits for themselves. He may be no worse than other Governors and Senators elected in 2010, but he has been out in the open about it. I see his resentment toward educated people as a very bad sign -- considering that most of the top politicians in America are attorneys with the requisite BA and law degrees. .      

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you. I may have my opinions on the issues, but I try to keep my understanding of the mechanics of the electoral process as objective as possible. People trip up badly when they say things like "Obama is so awful that I can't see how anyone who can vote for him". I have canvassed, and I heard someone say "How could you support someone that horrible?"  I heard such about Ronald Reagan in 1984, indicating that such folly is possible for either side. The same people fail to understand that if in August 2012 that if Barack Obama was clearly winning every state that had ever voted for Gore or Kerry, Nevada, and had a 50% chance of winning any one of four states (Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Colorado) very different and separated by significant distances, that random chance alone gave Mitt Romney only one chance in 16 of winning.

Romney had to change the dynamics of the campaign. There was no way to craft an appeal that wins one state and loses the others without losing altogether. He had to change the nationwide level of support for him so that he could put states like Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Wisconsin in play. At that he failed. He needed to win Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Colorado, giving Barack Obama a result that he had only one chance of winning all four of in 16 -- and got them all.  

This may surprise you: I do not really want a landslide win by Hillary Clinton.  The last President to win 370 or more electoral votes the first time and not have a troubled Presidency was Dwight Eisenhower. (I could say 360 in the event that Barack Obama turns into a dud).   I want the President to need just about every vote that he got to win election the first time to be re-elected. Political realignments, even if temporary (Carter in 1976) happen under the cover of landslides that allow Presidential arrogance.
  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I concur on that should the Democrats nominate a weak candidate for President. Wisconsin would then be only a small problem for the weak candidate. Strange things can still happen, and I have no desire to suggest some of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The most recent polling of Wisconsin shows Hillary Clinton winning Wisconsin against every imaginable Republican, and decisively.  

I agree with you wholeheartedly on your sketch of Pres. Obama. While I basically disagree with him on the vast majority of issues, he doesn't seem like the awful individual that some cut him out to be. I don't like Obama by any stretch, but I try to be careful in making judgment calls on people. Since some groups vote heavily Democratic, naturally they will find themselves heeded to in a Democratic Administration, which could be misconstrued as patronage. At the end of the day, Obama openly embraces many liberal ideas, not necessarily demagoguery.

I can't say I am particularly knowledgable about Walker's view of education. I am aware that he lacks a college degree, though I do not know one way or another whether he resents educated people as you claim. If you are willing to share a source you trust which advances that claim, I would greatly appreciate it. I was perturbed when Rick Santorum said Obama was a "snob" for wanting everyone to go to college, especially when that education can increase job opportunities in many cases, if that gives you an idea of how I feel about education. On the bright side (for Democrats), Walker's lack of a law education means that we won't see him become the next Earl Warren, as in a governor appointed to the Supreme Court

I think your view of elections is about as objective as anyone can get. You seem to make good judgment calls on polls and the like when you make your maps in this forum. I'm fairly young, and I wasn't alive during Ronald Reagan's victories, but I didn't realize there were people who wrote him off as horrible in the same way some attack Obama. In both 1984 and 2012, it seems pretty clear that the dynamics were in favor of the incumbent. Romney only seemed to have a serious chance after the first debate, but he never followed that up with any boost to his campaign.

It's interesting that you would not like a Hillary Clinton landslide. Perhaps we can put forth the claim that presidents who win their first terms in landslides will likely be favored for reelection from the get-go, meaning that they have more time for a slip-up, with eight years in office as opposed to four.

The polls indeed show Hillary up by a significant margin in Wisconsin. I think the current polls are probably accurate for telling us who would win if the election were held today, but once we enter campaign mode, Hillary's numbers might soften. Still, even though the 2016 election is two years out, it would be foolhardy to completely ignore the data we are seeing. I meant to make myself clearer in my previous post: if Walker can defeat Hillary nationally, I think that he might barely win Wisconsin by the skin of his teeth. If he loses against Hillary, she can probably snatch this state from him and place it in her column.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No in most circumstances, in fact it is pretty clear that he never would've been elected Governor in the first place had he faced presidential year turnout.  If you assume Barrett would've won the voters in Milwaukee and Dane Counties who voted in 2008 but not 2010 by the same margin he won the counties in 2010 then that alone closes most of the gap between Walker and him (and Barrett would've almost certainly done better than that with those voters if they showed up.  Walker won b/c the Republicans were only roughly 100,000 shy of presidential year turnout while the Democrats had weak midterm-level turnout.  Two different Americas are voting in presidential and midterm years; the people who show up to vote are generally pretty consistent.

[pbrower2a]

While I basically disagree with (Barack Obama) on the vast majority of issues, he doesn't seem like the awful individual that some cut him out to be. I don't like Obama by any stretch, but I try to be careful in making judgment calls on people. Since some groups vote heavily Democratic, naturally they will find themselves heeded to in a Democratic Administration, which could be misconstrued as patronage. At the end of the day, Obama openly embraces many liberal ideas, not necessarily demagoguery.

Demagoguery is not always liberal. It can be socialist, fascist, Commie, Ba'athist, or religious-fundamentalist. Barack Obama took great care to avoid making contradictory promises even to the point of assuming that he can't say one thing to the Sierra Club and its diametric opposite to the American Petroleum Institute, the hallmark of the demagogue.   He is a rationalist, so one can't expect him to appeal to the Religious Right that offers dubious solutions based upon superstition. I'd like to say that conservatism is a defense against demagoguery -- except that the word conservative has been twisted into something very different from caution and respect for precedent. Once in power, demagogues invariably fail to achieve their promises

Paradoxically, one of the sharpest critics of President Obama (Karl Rove) admitted that the best thing that he could say about the President is that he is "cautious". The respect that the President shows for legal precedent and for the value of historical wisdom are second nature to a conservative. Who knows -- maybe President Obama is redefining conservatism.

He won the votes of people least susceptible to demagoguery -- highly-educated people and successful members of minority groups. He did badly among some people who have been infamously vulnerable to demagogues -- under-educated white people low in economic achievements. In the past they have fallen for Bryan, Thurmond, and Wallace. They fell heavily for Jimmy Carter when he ran as a "good ol' boy" even if Carter wasn't much of a demagogue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Walker has baited educated 'elites' who disagree with him, even if those 'elites' are 'only' schoolteachers. I am reminded about what the "waterfront philosopher" Eric Hoffer says of elitism -- that the best way to deal with elitist attitudes is to dilute the attributes of the alleged elite by making the elite quality (like wealth or education) more commonplace. Aristocratic attitudes are rare in a land of yeoman farmers. Arrogance about educational superiority is far more commonplace where mass ignorance is the norm than where people are adequately  educated.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My favorite map shows the wins of Barack Obama against those of Dwight Eisenhower. On the surface the two Presidents could hardly be more dissimilar.  That said, if Barack Obama had not won a single state that Eisenhower won in 1952 and 1956 he would have won North Carolina (barely), Hawaii, and DC.

Sure, Obama won only one state (Massachusetts) that Nixon never won, and won only one state (Minnesota) that Reagan never won. So if one superimposes the win of someone with a bare victory upon a landslide you will find that JFK won only one state that Nixon never won and one state that Reagan never won.

The Eisenhower-Obama correlation is more remarkable when one considers that Eisenhower was the only Republican nominee for President since the 1920s to have won both Massachusetts and Minnesota in the same year -- and he did it twice! That is more amazing than Barack Obama winning Indiana once. That the maps for Eisenhower and Obama are near flips suggest

(1) the Parties have flipped in their appeal
(2) that Eisenhower and Obama appealed to similar voters
(3) maybe the two Presidents are more alike than one might think.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is true, it is amazing, and it is counter-intuitive. Some people live in narrow circles of political views and can't imagine anyone voting differently than themselves.  I met people who were sure that Michigan was going to go to John McCain because "nobody could ever vote for Obama" -- and the state went for Obama in by a 16% margin. To give some idea of how much a landslide that is -- Reagan won the state by 19% in 1984.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Four years after the LBJ landslide of 1964, Richard Nixon got elected to the Presidency. Four years after the Nixon landslide of 1972, Jimmy Carter got elected to the Presidency. Eight years after the Reagan landslide, Bill Clinton got elected President.  A most likely cause of trouble is that the winning coalition that gets more than 55% of the vote rifts because the President has won over people whose political desires are incompatible. Infighting begins, and angry words get exchanged. The party out of office is then in a good position in which to exploit the situation. The Reagan landslides depended upon putting the highly-secular "Rockefeller Republicans" and "(George) Wallace Democrats", and those two voting blocs have little in common. Bill Clinton picked up the Rockefeller Republicans and won a raft of states that Democrats just did not win before 1992. The "Rockefeller Republicans" had no problem voting with LBJ on civil rights laws, and the Wallace types bolted from the Democratic Party over civil rights for blacks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless a Presidential nominee is at or near a natural ceiling (think of some of the polls of 2008 that showed Barack Obama up 42-41 in North and South Dakota, which he eventually lost 54-46 or so) I usually expect the nominee behind at the time to gain some, but not enough to win. If the Republican is up 54-40, then practically all Republicans are voting  for the Republican and that those undecided are largely Democrats.

Early polls say something. Just think of the polls involving Sarah Palin against Barack Obama in 2009. She was losing by incredible margins. The pattern that I saw was that she was losing worst where the largest numbers of people were not native speakers of English. Sarah Palin's mangled diction enhances the difficulty of understanding her because it requires two translations instead of one -- first, from her awful prose to  Standard English and then from Standard English to the patterns of thought ingrained in one from learning the key concepts of life in some different grammar. Most politicians speak in Standard English, and that is closer to the phrasebook English that non-native speakers of English learn. Polls can show where regional strengths and weaknesses are.

Bad polls caused her to decide that she had no chance of winning.

Later polls can show other things -- like the effects of historical events, collapses of campaigns, the effects of scandals, and at the end the final results. Any incumbent politician who is behind 60-40 in July of an election year who says "the only poll that matters is the final vote" fools only himself and his supporters.  

[pbrower2a]

1952 Eisenhower (R)/  2008 McCain (R)

1952 Eisenhower (R)/ 2008 Obama (D)

1952 Stevenson (D)/ 2008 McCain (R)

1952 Stevenson (D) / 2008 Obama (R)

Gray -- did not vote in 1952

Note that electoral votes in Maine and Nebraska went the way the states voted in 1952 (no split among districts) and except for NE-02 went as the states went.

Curricula vitae of newly-elected Dwight Eisenhower and Barack Obama could hardly have been more different.

[pbrower2a]

1956 Eisenhower (R)/  2012 Romney (R)

1956 Eisenhower (R)/ 2012 Obama (D)

1956 Stevenson (D)/ 2008 McCain (R)

1956 Stevenson (D) / 2008 Obama (R)

Gray -- did not vote in 1956

All electoral votes for Maine and Nebraska went as the states went on the whole.

[pbrower2a]

It's pointless to 'postdict' how States or DC would have voted in 1952 or 1956 had they been States or had the vote... but I suspect that Alaska would have been R in all four elections, that and that Hawaii would have "Liked Ike" in 1952 and 1956.   DC would have been tricky -- how it would have reacted to a Democratic nominee who got almost all of his electoral votes from segregationist states (Kentucky and West Virginia went for Stevenson because of the powerful United Mine Workers Union, and that was the exception).  I suspect that Stevenson squeaks by in 1952 but loses DC in 1956 because of the President's clean record on civil rights for blacks.    

So how is Eisenhower relevant to Obama? Consider the forty-eight states that voted in both the 1950s and the last two times. That is 48 opportunities each, and 96 chances altogether.

Eisenhower and Obama twice 50
Eisenhower twice but never Obama  29
Stevenson twice and Obama never 12
Stevenson once and Obama never 3
Eisenhower twice and Obama once 1
Stevenson twice and Obama twice 1

The distribution is remarkable. Obama did well enough in states that Eisenhower won to win election twice. (OK, so he also did well enough in states that FDR, LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan won in landslides, too... but such is trivial. So what, really, if Obama won the two states that FDR lost in 1936!) There were states very strongly R in the 1950s that were also very R in the last two elections, which one usually expects. What is amazing is that states that went to the Democratic nominee in two really-bad years for the Democratic campaign for the Presidency.  

Eisenhower won some states that Republicans typically did not win before him or after him.  To be sure, Democrats had won just about everything during the FDR years -- but Eisenhower won the only two states outside the South that went against Hoover in 1928 (Massachusetts and Rhode island) and (pardon the overlap) two states that have never voted together for a Republican nominee for President (Massachusetts and Minnesota) since 1924 except twice for Eisenhower. Some Republican nominee who wins the only state that Nixon lost in 1972 and Reagan lost in 1984 has something going. I might not make as much about Barack Obama winning Indiana once or Virginia twice.  

Outside of the Deep and Mountain South, Eisenhower won two landslide elections. Outside the Deep South, the Mountain South, and the High Plains, Barack Obama won two landslide elections.  But Eisenhower was a Republican and Obama is a Democrat.