Did the losing party over perform or under perform electorally in each election

[dw93]

1968: Over performed. With the war, riots, and the Democratic convention that year, Nixon should've done much better than he did, with or without Wallace and even with a decent economy.

1972: Under performed, but only due to McGovern. If someone like HHH, Muskie, or even Jackson been nominated, Nixon still would've won decisively, but it wouldn't have been the blow out that it was. The Democratic party was still in shambles overall, Nixon did go to China, and while he did unnecessarily escalate the war, he did decrease the number of troops there, and while the economy was worse than it was in 1968, it still wasn't bad enough for Nixon to lose on that alone.

1976: Over performed. Ford had the pardon, a strong primary challenge from Reagan, and a weak recovery from the 73-75 recession. With all of this, Ford should've lost in a landslide, it was only because Carter made so many novice mistakes in the general election campaign and Ford being personally like able that the Republicans even had a chance in the first place. It says a lot about Carter (who, his Presidency aside, I like and respect) that it came so close in the first place.

1980: Slightly Under performed, but only because of Anderson. Had he not run, Carter would've done a little bit better than he did. Regardless, Reagan was gonna win well over 300 Electoral Votes.

1984: Slightly Under performed. Unemployment was still well north of 7% in 1984 and Mondale could've and should've used this to his advantage. Had he done that, kept his mouth shut about taxes, and picked someone with less baggage than Ferraro to be his running mate, Mondale would've done better. Reagan still wins a landslide regardless (and I say this as someone who his, overall, no fan of Reagan).

1988: Greatly Under performed. 1988 should've been a close election that could've gone either way than the Republican landslide that it was. Reagan's second term was rocked by Iran Contra (which was worse than anything Bill did with Monica) and there does tend to be at least some fatigue after 8 years of one party in the White House. If the Democrats nominated a stronger candidate or Dukakis didn't make SOO many mistakes, Bush would've really been given a run for his money.

1992: Slightly Under Performed, but IMHO, in the end Bush was still doomed to defeat. Bush's foreign policy accomplishments alone should've made it a closer race, but because of the early 90s recession (The recovery was underway in 92 but not noticeable until Clinton got in) and Bush's response to it, as well as Bush not having much of anything to offer for a Second Term, Atwater's death in 1991, and Perot and Buchanan (who hurt Bush more than Perot IMHO) muddying the waters, Bush was still going to lose. Subtract Montana, Colorado, Nevada, and Georgia from Clinton and give them to Bush, that's probably what the 92 election would've looked like if Bush hadn't under performed.

1996-2004: Your descriptions of those are pretty spot on.

2008: Was about right IMHO. Obama's lack of experience was an issue. I think had he been more experienced, or the Dems nominated a more experienced candidate, or Romney or Huckabee gotten the Republican nomination, it would've been a landslide win for the Dems.

2012: Pretty spot on, and I as an Obama voter thought it was gonna be a close election up to election day for the very reasons you stated. With that said, I still think Obama was going to win in the end. I think Obama won, at least in part, because the Country wasn't ready to put another Republican in just 4 years after the disaster that was the Bush/Cheney Administration.

2016: About right. As a Sanders/Clinton voter, I do think The fundamentals did slightly favor the GOP. It was just that they had a bad field of candidates (of the main ones, Kasich aside).