Categorizing elections historically...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:50:13 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Categorizing elections historically...
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Categorizing elections historically...  (Read 3058 times)
twenty42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 861
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 09, 2017, 03:58:49 PM »

Let's categorize the elections by popular vote margin, starting with 1824 (when the popualr vote became a thing).

Nail-biters = <2%
Close margins = 2-5%
Comfortable margins = 5-10%
Landslides = >10%
Italics indicate a PV/EV split.

Nail-biters (7)
1844, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1960, 1968, 2000

Close margins (10)
1848, 1876, 1892, 1896, 1916, 1948, 1976, 2004, 2012, 2016

Comfortable margins (12)
1840, 1852, 1868, 1900, 1908, 1940, 1944, 1980, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2008

Landslides (20)

1824, 1828, 1832, 1836, 1856, 1860, 1864, 1872, 1904, 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984

Some curious data points to point out...

--While landslides have happened less often than not with approximately 41% of elections falling into the category, the plurality of American elections have indeed been landslides.

--We haven't experienced a landslide in the last eight elections. This is a record amount of time without one, beating the 1876-1900 streak of seven non-landslides.

--Nail-biters have been the rarest category historically, however three of the seven occurred consecutively from 1880-1888. Interestingly, Richard Nixon participated in two of the seven, losing one and winning one.

--On two occasions, back-to-back landslides have voted for opposite parties...1856/1860 and 1928/1932.

--We often talk of our current era as being one of unprecedented polarization, but a look at the data shows that isn't quite true. There was a streak of six elections from 1876-1896 where the popular vote spread was less than 5%, with three nail-biters and three close margins. In contrast to this, our last six elections included two comfortable margins, along with three close margins and one nail-biter.

--Richard Nixon was the only president to win both a nail-biter and a landslide.

--Only one nail-biter, 1888, featured an incumbent president. Curiously, President Cleveland won the popular vote, but did not win the electoral college.

--Four presidents won reelection with close margins (Cleveland 1892, Wilson 1916, Bush 2004, Obama 2012). Two of these instances resulted in reduced margins (Wilson went from landslide to close in 1916, and Obama went from comfortable to close in 2012).

--Longest streaks of each category...
  • Nail-biter: 3, 1880-1888
  • Close: 2 (tied), 1892-1896, 2012-2016
  • Comfortable: 3, 1988-1996
  • Landslide: 5, 1920-1936

--Nine out of 14 elections from 1904 through 1956 were landslides, and an additional three were comfortable margins. Why did presidential elections tend to be so decisive in the first half of the twentieth century? Did both parties alternate between periods of massive unpopularity, or was the American voting public just wildly elastic during this period?
Logged
MIKESOWELL
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 535
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2017, 10:04:33 AM »
« Edited: September 11, 2017, 10:07:33 AM by MIKESOWELL »

Great list. I would downgrade 1916 from close election to nail biter. A 277-254 Electoral College win is quite a squeaker, and less than four thousand votes saved Wilson in California from defeat. I also disagree with 1824, 1836, 1856, and 1860 as being landslides.
 
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,233
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2017, 08:22:55 PM »

Great list. I would downgrade 1916 from close election to nail biter. A 277-254 Electoral College win is quite a squeaker, and less than four thousand votes saved Wilson in California from defeat. I also disagree with 1824, 1836, 1856, and 1860 as being landslides.
 
OP wasn't making subjective judgement calls, he was categorizing these elections into clearly defined objective categories based on popular vote. The only way to disagree with these categories is to be wrong.
Logged
twenty42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 861
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2017, 10:13:48 AM »

Great list. I would downgrade 1916 from close election to nail biter. A 277-254 Electoral College win is quite a squeaker, and less than four thousand votes saved Wilson in California from defeat. I also disagree with 1824, 1836, 1856, and 1860 as being landslides.
 
OP wasn't making subjective judgement calls, he was categorizing these elections into clearly defined objective categories based on popular vote. The only way to disagree with these categories is to be wrong.

Yeah...I was actually surprised by a couple of these myself. I always considered a 1980 a landslide, but it wasn't quite a double-digit win so it just missed the cut. I also never realized that 1988 and 2008 were so similar in margin...you'd never guess so looking at both maps.
Logged
MIKESOWELL
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 535
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2017, 05:43:42 PM »

Great list. I would downgrade 1916 from close election to nail biter. A 277-254 Electoral College win is quite a squeaker, and less than four thousand votes saved Wilson in California from defeat. I also disagree with 1824, 1836, 1856, and 1860 as being landslides.
 
OP wasn't making subjective judgement calls, he was categorizing these elections into clearly defined objective categories based on popular vote. The only way to disagree with these categories is to be wrong.

I understand the set criteria. My point was that despite the categories, I wouldn't personally consider 1824 as being a landslide as well as a few others. I have my own PERSONAL criteria for what a landslide is. Also, I clearly said great list, knowing how and why he grouped each election into each category.
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2018, 02:56:02 PM »

Freedom list! I find it fascinating that (1) two elections were lost by the PV winner that weren't even nail-biters (1876 and 2016), and (2) there were so many landslides-- nearly half! Also remarkable that there have been none since 1984.

Also, 1980 clearly stands out as a non-landslide (PV margin was 9.73%, not 10%) even though Reagan '80 won the 5th biggest EV share in history (behind FDR '36, Reagan '84, Nixon '72, and-- by a whisker-- Lincoln 1864). Most people I know who came of age in the '80s (and who voted for Reagan) consider it a landslide.
Logged
Hydera
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2018, 03:16:52 PM »

Freedom list! I find it fascinating that (1) two elections were lost by the PV winner that weren't even nail-biters (1876 and 2016), and (2) there were so many landslides-- nearly half! Also remarkable that there have been none since 1984.

Also, 1980 clearly stands out as a non-landslide (PV margin was 9.73%, not 10%) even though Reagan '80 won the 5th biggest EV share in history (behind FDR '36, Reagan '84, Nixon '72, and-- by a whisker-- Lincoln 1864). Most people I know who came of age in the '80s (and who voted for Reagan) consider it a landslide.


Yea, pre-1984 a lot of states were closely won and could be swayed even with a slight change in the PV. However the rural vote becoming consistently republican means that its harder for a Democrat to swing states. Had Obama won the same PV as Reagan did in their first elections he only would had gotten 379 EV's. far from Reagan's 489.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2018, 03:46:22 PM »

Freedom list! I find it fascinating that (1) two elections were lost by the PV winner that weren't even nail-biters (1876 and 2016), and (2) there were so many landslides-- nearly half! Also remarkable that there have been none since 1984.

Also, 1980 clearly stands out as a non-landslide (PV margin was 9.73%, not 10%) even though Reagan '80 won the 5th biggest EV share in history (behind FDR '36, Reagan '84, Nixon '72, and-- by a whisker-- Lincoln 1864). Most people I know who came of age in the '80s (and who voted for Reagan) consider it a landslide.


Yea, pre-1984 a lot of states were closely won and could be swayed even with a slight change in the PV. However the rural vote becoming consistently republican means that its harder for a Democrat to swing states. Had Obama won the same PV as Reagan did in their first elections he only would had gotten 379 EV's. far from Reagan's 489.

The flip side of this is that a 15%+ PV margin would now net more EV for a Democrat than for a Republican, because CA/NY/IL are so Safe D right now. 
Logged
twenty42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 861
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2018, 04:16:14 PM »

Freedom list! I find it fascinating that (1) two elections were lost by the PV winner that weren't even nail-biters (1876 and 2016), and (2) there were so many landslides-- nearly half! Also remarkable that there have been none since 1984.

Also, 1980 clearly stands out as a non-landslide (PV margin was 9.73%, not 10%) even though Reagan '80 won the 5th biggest EV share in history (behind FDR '36, Reagan '84, Nixon '72, and-- by a whisker-- Lincoln 1864). Most people I know who came of age in the '80s (and who voted for Reagan) consider it a landslide.


Yea, pre-1984 a lot of states were closely won and could be swayed even with a slight change in the PV. However the rural vote becoming consistently republican means that its harder for a Democrat to swing states. Had Obama won the same PV as Reagan did in their first elections he only would had gotten 379 EV's. far from Reagan's 489.

The flip side of this is that a 15%+ PV margin would now net more EV for a Democrat than for a Republican, because CA/NY/IL are so Safe D right now. 

I agree about CA and NY, but I'm pretty sure IL would be tossup in a 15-point national R win.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2018, 08:11:50 PM »

Great list. I would downgrade 1916 from close election to nail biter. A 277-254 Electoral College win is quite a squeaker, and less than four thousand votes saved Wilson in California from defeat. I also disagree with 1824, 1836, 1856, and 1860 as being landslides.
 
OP wasn't making subjective judgement calls, he was categorizing these elections into clearly defined objective categories based on popular vote. The only way to disagree with these categories is to be wrong.

OP was wrong in the method of categorization, which should be done by popular vote margin in the tipping point state. 1916 is (I believe) the second-closest election ever by that more reasonable metric.


But then what would we do in cases like 2008 where the tipping point state changes depending on how a 269/269 tie is interpreted.
Logged
Peanut
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,105
Costa Rica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2018, 10:04:13 PM »

1860 wasn't a landslide in my opinion, a majority didn't vote for Lincoln, and taking into account only Lincoln and Douglas the margin was just over 10%. Nice list though.
Logged
twenty42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 861
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2018, 11:24:12 PM »

Great list. I would downgrade 1916 from close election to nail biter. A 277-254 Electoral College win is quite a squeaker, and less than four thousand votes saved Wilson in California from defeat. I also disagree with 1824, 1836, 1856, and 1860 as being landslides.
 
OP wasn't making subjective judgement calls, he was categorizing these elections into clearly defined objective categories based on popular vote. The only way to disagree with these categories is to be wrong.



OP was wrong in the method of categorization, which should be done by popular vote margin in the tipping point state. 1916 is (I believe) the second-closest election ever by that more reasonable metric.


I didn't want to involve the electoral college in my categorizations. The EC is very fluky and I don't think it's really a level playing field upon which to judge every election. And like Solid said, some elections have multiple tipping-point states. The NPV is the only true equalizer to compare every election.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,388
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2018, 03:29:59 AM »

I've always been fascinated by the parallels between the 1880s and the present, political polarization among them.
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2018, 09:44:38 AM »
« Edited: February 04, 2018, 09:47:13 AM by mathstatman »

There's probably no "perfect" way (firm yes or firm no) to delineate a "landslide". Perhaps consensus is best. Everyone agrees 1936, 1964, 1972, and 1984 were landslides (even though in each case if you polled 10 voters at random, on average 4 would have voted for the loser, which hardly sounds like a romp); 2000, 2004, and 2016 were close; and 2008 was somewhere in between.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2018, 01:57:08 PM »
« Edited: February 04, 2018, 01:59:48 PM by Oldiesfreak1854 »

There's probably no "perfect" way (firm yes or firm no) to delineate a "landslide". Perhaps consensus is best. Everyone agrees 1936, 1964, 1972, and 1984 were landslides (even though in each case if you polled 10 voters at random, on average 4 would have voted for the loser, which hardly sounds like a romp); 2000, 2004, and 2016 were close; and 2008 was somewhere in between.
True, there's no cut and dry way to determine if an election is close, a landslide, or somewhere in between, although there are some that everyone agrees on.  My personal definition of a landslide is if a second place presidential candidate gets less than 100 electoral votes (or the combined total of all losers with EVs is less than 100), and in a non-presidential election, where the winning candidate gets 60% of the vote or more.

I don't consider popular vote margins in categorizing presidential elections since the national popular vote has no bearing on the outcome anyway.  (Or put another way, the popular vote only matters at the state level.)
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2018, 05:13:49 PM »

Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,500
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2018, 07:53:48 PM »

1860 wasn't a landslide in my opinion, a majority didn't vote for Lincoln, and taking into account only Lincoln and Douglas the margin was just over 10%. Nice list though.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2018, 07:03:59 AM »

1860 wasn't a landslide in my opinion, a majority didn't vote for Lincoln, and taking into account only Lincoln and Douglas the margin was just over 10%. Nice list though.
Also, if everyone who did not vote for Lincoln all voted for the same other candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by over 20%, but he would have still won the electoral college.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2021, 01:39:43 AM »

(Modified to add the strange Presidential election of 2020:


To provide the alternate perspective rather than just making a fuss, here are the margins in the tipping point states going back to 1832:

Nail-biters = <2%
Close margins = 2-5%
Comfortable margins = 5-10%
Landslides = >10%

Nail-biters
1844 (NY 1.05)
1876 (CO state legislature/SC 0.49)
1880 (NY 1.91)
1884 (NY 0.1)
1888 (NY 1.09)
1916 (CA 0.38)
1948 (IL 0.84)
1960 (MO 0.52)
1976 (WI 1.68)
2000 (FL 0.0092)
2016 (PA/WI; 0.72–0.76)
2020* (WI  0.63) even if Biden won the popular vote by 4.46% nationwide

Close margins
1836* (PA 2.36)
1840 (NJ 3.59)
1848 (PA 3.62)
1856* (TN 4.36) ↑↑
1892 (IL 3.09)
1896 (OH 4.78)
1968 (OH 2.28)
1992 (TN 4.65)
2004 (OH 2.11)
 
Comfortable margins
1852 (NY 5.21)
1860* (NY 7.4)
1864 (IN 7.0)
1868 (NC 6.80)
1872 (OH 7.09)
1900 (IL 8.39)
1908 (KS 9.58)
1940 (PA 6.89)
1944 (NY 5.01)
1980 (IL 7.93)
1988 (MI 7.9)
1996 (PA 9.2)
2008 (IA 9.53)
2012 (CO 5.37)
 
Landslides
1832* (ME/LA; 10.67/23.34)
1904 (NJ 18.63)
1912 (NY 12.6)
1920 (RI 31.19)
1924 (NE 17.51)
1928 (IL 14.65)
1932 (IA 17.71)
1936 (OH 20.56)
1952 (MI 11.47)
1956 (FL 14.54)
1964 (OH 25.89)
1972 (ME 22.98)
1984 (MI 18.99)

Those marked with asterisks are those in which the winning candidate would have been held short of a majority of the EC, therefore throwing the election to the House.

Those marked with asterisks are categorized by the state which would have thrown the election to the House. Also listed as an alternate is the state which would have delivered the election to the runner-up (Clay, Frémont, Douglas).

I left off 1828 as I don't yet have congressional district-level data for New York and Maine, which is necessary to determine which state (or possibly CD) tipped the election.

In elections beginning in 2008, nominees have frequently won many states by Reagan-like margins while losing others by Mondale-like margins in 1984. It may not be so remarkable that a nominee wins one state (Massachusetts) by an overwhelming majority and loses another (Alabama) by an overwhelming majority. In elections in which cultural affinity seems to decide more who wins a state or loses a state, demographics are everything. Thus two states that can even look much alike may have such disparities in results as Illinois (Biden winning it by 16.96%) and Indiana (Trump winning it by 16.03%). The difference is that Greater Chicago and Greater Indianapolis, although similar in political orientation, are much difference in size with respect to their states. Urban Indiana (except perhaps Fort Wayne) and urban Illinois vote much the same. Rural Illinois and rural Indiana vote much the same. Illinois does have the older and often more decrepit suburbs.

COVID-19 may have greatly shaped how people voted and did electioneering.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 14 queries.