How would past elections go if the electorates had foresight?

[Skill and Chance]

Explanation: times when one party blew the economy and handled foreign policy well or vice versa would be close elections, all others would be blowouts.  If a candidate had a mixed record but won in a landslide, I generally assume the would still win narrowly.

2012: 55/43 Romney (pending 2015-16, but it would have to go really well)
2008: 51/47 Obama (would leave Dems with only 56 senators, so no Obamacare)
2004: 59/40 Kerry
2000: 55/43 Gore
1996: 52/38/10 Clinton
1992: 49/28/22 Clinton
1988: 50/48 Bush
1984: 65/33 Reagan (roughly the limit of who could be swung)
1980: 56/38 Reagan (roughly min possible incumbent support)
1976: 60/38 Ford
1972: 50/48 Nixon
1968: 55/43 Humphrey
1964: 50/48 LBJ (narrowly decided as a social issues election)
1960: 52/46 Kennedy
1956: 61/37 Ike
1952: 65/33 Ike
1948: 51/44 Truman (not sure why so many favor Dewey here?)
1944: 65/33 FDR (with foreknowledge of 22nd Amendment, why support Dewey if not GOP base?)
1940: 65/33 FDR (see 1944)
1936: 65/33 FDR (see 1944)
1932: 60/38 FDR (see 1980)
1928: 50/48 Hoover (tough, but most wouldn't mess with timeline in 1930's- risk of dictatorship)

[Skill and Chance]

Actually, the more I think about this, the changes would be far more profound.

e.g. If pro-Civil Rights Republicans in 1876 were told what was really going to happen in the South from 1880-1964, there would be massive strategic voting for Tilden.  That would likely lead to major voting rights legislation the next time Republicans have full control, which means the Solid South would probably never happen.

[Skill and Chance]

More thoughts on strategic voting:

2008: As I mentioned, you can punish Bush-era R's and avoid D overreach just by voting in a few more R senators, no need to vote for McCain if unhappy with Bush.

1996: Would Lewinsky foreknowledge matter given the great economy?

1960: This one could change drastically if everyone knew in advance that Catholic/Protestant identity politics would essentially play no role in future elections.  With foreknowledge of the sexual revolution and 1960's social movements, there might be mass defections of socially conservative Catholics to Nixon and socially liberal Protestants to Kennedy.  It probably ends up  looking a lot like 2004- Kennedy would lose the South and win the West Coast along with more of the Midwest and New England.

1928: Do people conclude that Smith could avert the Depression?  If not, why risk losing FDR?

1912: Massive Northern swing from Taft to Teddy Roosevelt?