since 1968, without taking account who the opposing candidate was , unless they were an incumbent president.
1968: Over Performed (No way Humphrey should have been that close to winning, with LBJ being that unpopular, and the amount of unrest their was in the country in 1968)
In early Sept. 1968 HHH was only at 28% in the polls; Nixon led with 43% and Wallace had 21%; there was speculation Wallace might outperform HHH in the EC. HHH surged in Sept. and Oct.
into early November. HHH winning TX was a bit of a surprise I think.
1972: Under Performed(They should have won around 100 electoral votes this year, seeing that nixon wasnt that popular , and the economy wasnt doing that well)
Nixon led McGovern heavily throughout the campaign; McGovern was perceived as "weak"; his dumping of Eagleton as running-mate didn't help.
1976: Around the Same(with mixed conditions in the country , and the president approval being mixed this election always was going to be a close one, and the election was likely going to be won by the dems narrowly due to Ford's Pardon)
Mirror image of 1968, with Carter up 33 points at one point, only to nearly lose the election (the final Gallup poll actually had Ford up 1).
1980: Under Performed(Carter got less electoral votes then Hoover did in 1932 and while the country was in terrible shape in 1980 it was no where near as bad of a shape as it was in 1932)
Right up to election day the election was considered too close to call. Reagan led Carter by 3 points, 47/44, in the final Gallup poll.
1984: Around the Same(Reagan was super popular , the country was clearly in better shape then it was in 1980, the country wasnt that divided back then as now so this election was always going to result in a massive landslide for Reagan)
No surprises; Reagan led big from early Sept. after Mondale had made it relatively close after the Dem convention and even led by 2 in one July poll.
1988: Under Performed(After being out of office for 8 years, the party out of power should be able to get more then 112 electoral votes)
Dukakis led Bush by 17 points in one poll taken in the spring of 1988.
1992: Under performed(The country was not in that bad of a shape, the cold war ended under gop rule, and the economy was improving by 1992. While Bush wouldnt have won he should have won at least 210 electoral votes , instead of doing worse then McCain 2008 electorally)
In early Oct., after Perot got back in, Clinton led Bush, 52/35. The final Gallup poll showed Clinton up 44/36, with 14% for Perot. Perot's actual PV% was 19%.
Bush's comment that "most of my supporters are on the back nine or at their daughters' coming-out parties" probably didn't help him.
1996: Over Performed( Clinton was popular, and the country was clearly in great shape , there was no reason the GOP should have won more then 140 electoral votes this year)
2000: Under Performed(With the economy being in such good shape, and there being no foreign policy crises , Democrats should have won this election)
2004: Around the Same(With the country being in mixed shape, and being very polarized due to the Iraq War in 2004 this election was always going to be close but since the GOP was in office for one term this election was likely going to be GOP wins in a close race)
2008:Over Performed (With Bush approval in the 20s, the US being involved in an unpopular war, and the economy crashing two months before the election there was no reason the GOP should have won more then 140 electoral votes)
2012: Under Performed(With the country still being in pretty bad shape economically , this election likely should have been as close as 2000 , instead Obama won pretty handily )
2016: Around the Same(With the country conditions still being in mixed shape after 8 years this election was likely going to be won by the GOP and they did)
1996-2012 polls were spot-on. As we all know, most polls got 2016 wrong, at least in terms of the final result.
