Biggest Presidential upset

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

If I am missing some staggeringly obvious option, please let me know.

[Speed of Sound]

Truman vs. Dewey 1948

[True Democrat]

If I am missing some staggeringly obvious option, please let me know.

Truman v Dewey is the obvious one.

[minionofmidas]

Going by the most trusted opinion polls, FDR vs Landon.

[True Democrat]

Going by the most trusted opinion polls, FDR vs Landon.

The Gallup polls only surveyed people with a phone, so I wouldn't trust them that much.  The other poll (I forget the name), sent out like 20,000 letters, and got back like 1,000 or something, so I wouldn't trust those either.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Truman vs. Dewey 1948

I'd say it's either that or 2000.

Remember, in 2000 the Clinton Administration was coming off 8 years of economic growth and prosperity (whether it was really a bubble waiting to burst, or whether the prosperity had anything to do with Clinton/Gore is irrelevant).  We had 8 years of peace.  The Republicans had no clear leader to oppose Gore, who was the natural successor to Clinton.  All of the signs pointed to an easy Democrat continuation of control of the White House.  In fact, back in early 2000 if you asked political scientists who they thought would win the 2000 election, almost all of them would have predicted Gore.

Bush in those early days of the campaign looked like an idiot.  If not for some really filthy tactics by Karl Rove, John McCain probably would have won the nomination.  In the end, the Bush "brand name" won the nomination... but was it really all that great a brand name?  Associated with a one-term president regarded by many to be a pale shadow of Reagan and a failure?

If you look at 2000 from any sort of objective angle, Gore should have stomped all over Bush.  It should have been 55%-40%, with Bush winning only the deep south, northern plains, and rocky mountain west. 

But Gore massively screwed up.  He simultaneously failed to associate himself with Clinton's successes AND failed to separate himself from Clinton's immoral ways that pissed off so many social conservatives.  He came off as stiff and condescending contrasted with Bush's easy-going, good-ol'-boy style.  Karl Rove was able to take advantage of this at every turn, and just barely squeaked a victory out of it.

The fact that Gore would have become President had he only carried his own state, goes to show how much of an upset it was.  Or, alternatively, how much of a failure Gore was as a candidate.  He had the White House handed to him, and couldn't hang on.

[True Democrat]

But also remember that Bush was leading Gore in most of the polls, so I wouldn't call it an upset.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

But also remember that Bush was leading Gore in most of the polls, so I wouldn't call it an upset.

Well, I'm not talking about the polls alone, but rather looking at the bigger picture, the state of the nation and the political situation at the time.  Bush should not have defeated Gore in 2000.

Dukakis lead Bush by double digits at one point in 1988, but I wouldn't call Bush 88 a "comeback victory."  There was no way Dukakis could have won that election.

[skybridge]

1876 was pretty shady, but since nobody is alive anymore from then I voted 2000.

[tinman64]

I voted "other."  Surprise - I think 1960 was an upset, in the last sixty years or so. Nixon was more familiar; He had a stronger base (many of JFK's states were razor-thin); he demonstrated leadership after Ike's heart attack; and the economy was in decent shape after the 1958 recession.  TV did him in.

Why not 1948 as the upset?  Clearly, the pollsters were wrong; They stopped polling pretty much after Labor Day.  I think the last poll showed a gain for Truman.  Had they continued, the trend towards Truman would have been obvious.

The assumption the pollsters made was that Thurmond and Wallace would siphon enough Democratic votes to make Dewey president.  However, the South was still strongly Democratic; outside of the four states Thurmond won, he didn't come close to winning another state.  Half of Wallace's support came from New York.  The big surprise is that Truman didn't get the EVs that FDR did in '40 or '44.  Had Wallace and Thurmond not campaigned, Truman certainly would have won AL, LA, MD, MI, MS, and SC. 

Truman credited labor for his victory, but it was a coalition of labor, New Dealers, and African-Americans.  The shock is not that Truman won; the shock is that the election was close.

[dazzleman]

Truman vs. Dewey 1948

I'd say it's either that or 2000.

Remember, in 2000 the Clinton Administration was coming off 8 years of economic growth and prosperity (whether it was really a bubble waiting to burst, or whether the prosperity had anything to do with Clinton/Gore is irrelevant).  We had 8 years of peace.  The Republicans had no clear leader to oppose Gore, who was the natural successor to Clinton.  All of the signs pointed to an easy Democrat continuation of control of the White House.  In fact, back in early 2000 if you asked political scientists who they thought would win the 2000 election, almost all of them would have predicted Gore.

Bush in those early days of the campaign looked like an idiot.  If not for some really filthy tactics by Karl Rove, John McCain probably would have won the nomination.  In the end, the Bush "brand name" won the nomination... but was it really all that great a brand name?  Associated with a one-term president regarded by many to be a pale shadow of Reagan and a failure?

If you look at 2000 from any sort of objective angle, Gore should have stomped all over Bush.  It should have been 55%-40%, with Bush winning only the deep south, northern plains, and rocky mountain west. 

But Gore massively screwed up.  He simultaneously failed to associate himself with Clinton's successes AND failed to separate himself from Clinton's immoral ways that pissed off so many social conservatives.  He came off as stiff and condescending contrasted with Bush's easy-going, good-ol'-boy style.  Karl Rove was able to take advantage of this at every turn, and just barely squeaked a victory out of it.

The fact that Gore would have become President had he only carried his own state, goes to show how much of an upset it was.  Or, alternatively, how much of a failure Gore was as a candidate.  He had the White House handed to him, and couldn't hang on.

Very good points Beef, but I would also say that part of the definition of an upset is that it comes as a big surprise.  Since Bush had been at least even with Gore in the polls during the campaign, it wasn't a big shock that he defeated Gore, albeit by the thinnest of possible margins.  But it was a big surprise that Gore didn't win his home state.  I think social conservatives in Tennessee (and other states as well) felt that Gore had abandoned his roots in supporting President Clinton so strongly during the Lewinsky scandal (among other things, like Gore's switch on abortion), and southerners in particular felt that he wasn't "one of them" anymore.

It's very difficult to get elected as a vice president, and doubly difficult as a vice president to a very self-centered and controversial president like Clinton.  The unusual circumstance of the first lady running for a senate seat also figured in, since the White House's first priority was helping her, not Gore.  Reagan made it easier for Bush to be elected, but Clinton made it more difficult for Gore, just as Eisenhower did to Nixon.

[PBrunsel]

Cleveland over Blaine. The Republicans were just unable to wave the bloody shirt with a nominee who was not a veteran.

[J. J.]

Cleveland over Blaine.

Agreed, and the losing move was "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion," which alienated more than the Irish origen Civil War veterans in NY.

[jimrtex]

I voted "other."  Surprise - I think 1960 was an upset, in the last sixty years or so. Nixon was more familiar; He had a stronger base (many of JFK's states were razor-thin); he demonstrated leadership after Ike's heart attack; and the economy was in decent shape after the 1958 recession.  TV did him in.

And he won the popular vote.  The electoral college did him in.

[minionofmidas]

I voted "other."  Surprise - I think 1960 was an upset, in the last sixty years or so. Nixon was more familiar; He had a stronger base (many of JFK's states were razor-thin); he demonstrated leadership after Ike's heart attack; and the economy was in decent shape after the 1958 recession.  TV did him in.

And he won the popular vote.  The electoral college did him in.

Nonsense.
At least add the five dozen qualifiers of that weirdly partisan study that concluded that.

[jimrtex]

And he won the popular vote.  The electoral college did him in.

Nonsense.
At least add the five dozen qualifiers of that weirdly partisan study that concluded that.

Which weirdly partisan study are you referring to?  See Dave Leip's maps in the Atlas.

Qualifier 1) Presidents are not chosen by popular vote, but rather by the electoral college.
Qualifier 2) Electors are generally elected by popular vote.
Qualifier 3) In most cases, the electors are unknown to the voters and are actually elected under the Presidential candidate's name.  A vote for John Doe is actually vote for electors pledged to vote for John Doe.
Qualifier 4) It is conventional practice to total the votes cast for electors pledged to a particular presidential candidate as being cast for the presidential candidate himself.
Qualifier 5) A candidate is said to have won the "popular vote" if he receives more "popular votes" than any other candidate, even if it is not a majority.
Qualifier 6) The name of John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, or Harry Byrd was not on the ballot in Alabama.  The electors on the Democrat slate were split between 5 supporters of Kennedy and 6 unpledged elector candidates.
Qualifier 7) The Democrat elector candidates had been chosen in a primary which permitted selection of individual electors.  A very close election resulted in selection of some candidates from both factions.
Qualifier It would be absurd to conclude that a vote cast for the Democrat slate that resulted in the selection of an elector who cast a electoral vote for Harry Byrd was actually a "popular vote" for John Kennedy.
Qualifier 9) To do so, would mean that 590,000 voters in Alabama cast 900,000 "popular votes" including 310,000 for Kennedy and 310,000 for Byrd.   Or that in neighboring Mississippi, where there were two separate Democrat elector slates that the popular votes cast for both were cast for Kennedy, even though the winning electors voted for Byrd.
Qualifier 10) The most straightforward way to apportion the popular vote in Alabama would be distribute it proportionately between the Kennedy and Byrd on a 5:6 split which matched the elector distribution.  Such a distribution would result in 173,620 votes for Byrd, rather than Kennedy, which is larger than the national margin of "popular vote" victory for Kennedy in the other 49 other states.

The following article claims that the 6 Byrd electors actively campaigned for the Democrat ticket during the general election, while the Kennedy electors sat out the election.  Perhaps no "popular votes" in Alabama should be attributed to Kennedy.

DID NIXON BEAT KENNEDY?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[minionofmidas]

Qualifier 4) It is conventional practice to total the votes cast for electors pledged to a particular presidential candidate as being cast for the presidential candidate himself.

No. It is conventional practice to print the highest no. of votes received by any of a candidates' electors as that candidate's no. of votes. While this doesn't make much logical sense (and somewhat inflates the no. of votes cast) it is the standard practice followed all through this Atlas and all other popular sources.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Notice: Unpledged Democrats. Notice: Not pledged to Harry Byrd.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was a popular vote for the Democrats. Given the actual distribution of the votes, it is absurd to conclude otherwise, as only a couple of hundred people across the state voted only for the pledged Dems, or only for the unpledged Dems, or for the pledged Dems and 6 Republicans, or for the unpledged Dems and 5 Republicans. ie, the distinction between pledged and unpledged candidates was widely ignored, or considered comparatively irrelevant, by, or in many cases simply not known to, Alabamans at the time.
Nor was there any doubt, at the time, that the unpledged electoral votes' were Kennedy's if he needed them, though a political price would have to be payed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not for Byrd. 310,000 for nobody, at the very most.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In Louisiana too, actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not straightforward at all, as should be clear from what's said above.
(Btw, such a "fusion" slate is not unknown of in American electoral history, though this one is unusual in that nobody had wanted it. Look at ND in 1892. Also, look at how PV is attributed there. As the top vote getting Democrat elector was unpledged, it would actually be in keeping with general practice to attribute the whole Dem vote to the unpledgeds in the PV total. Which would also have the Nixon apologists' desired effect.)

Oh, and I was referring to the one I read just after the presidential election of 2000.

[RJ]

1948,s pretty obvious here.

I'll say 2000 could have been. I never for a second thought Gore would win heading into September that year. I'll give Bush credit for being a good campaigner, but Gore's campaign was rediculous. I was very surprised when it actually went to the supreme court and Gore actually stood to win.

[© tweed]

1948, easily.  There isn't even a clear number two.

[jimrtex]

Qualifier 4) It is conventional practice to total the votes cast for electors pledged to a particular presidential candidate as being cast for the presidential candidate himself.

No. It is conventional practice to print the highest no. of votes received by any of a candidates' electors as that candidate's no. of votes. While this doesn't make much logical sense (and somewhat inflates the no. of votes cast) it is the standard practice followed all through this Atlas and all other popular sources.

Current practice in the United States is for electors to run as a slate.  All receive the same number of votes.  The 1960 Democrat electors in Alabama ran as a slate in the general election.  The practice you describe died out nearly a century ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Notice: Unpledged Democrats. Notice: Not pledged to Harry Byrd.[/quote]
Largely irrelevant, unless you are going to try to make a case that because they were unpledged, that they should be counted as supporting Kennedy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was a popular vote for the Democrats. Given the actual distribution of the votes, it is absurd to conclude otherwise, as only a couple of hundred people across the state voted only for the pledged Dems, or only for the unpledged Dems, or for the pledged Dems and 6 Republicans, or for the unpledged Dems and 5 Republicans. ie, the distinction between pledged and unpledged candidates was widely ignored, or considered comparatively irrelevant, by, or in many cases simply not known to, Alabamans at the time.[/quote]
Where do you get the idea that there were any split votes between Republicans and Democrats?  Why would Alabamans be ignorant of the distinction, considering that the unpledged electors actively campaigned, and the reason for the split slate was the closeness of the Democrat primary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Evidence?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not for Byrd. 310,000 for nobody, at the very most.[/quote]
280,000 for Nixon and 310,000 for nobody?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not straightforward at all, as should be clear from what's said above.[/quote]
I wish I could find the news article that was written at the time that proposed precisely that distribution.  It was be someone who later became a well known Washington political journalist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fusion "slate" in North Dakota ran as individual candidates.  That is why a Republican elector was chosen.  ND 1892 is not applicable to AL 1960.  I don't grok "Nixon apologist".

Did Nixon Beat Kennedy?

George W. Bush "lost the popular vote." So did JFK
Neil Pierce is who I was thinking of.

Nixon Defeats Kennedy!

3 Elections where the Electoral College "winner" had fewer popular votes than the "loser."

1876: Tilden (D) with 4,287,670 popular votes or [50.9 %] of the popular vote and 184 electoral votes lost to Hayes (R) who had 4,035,924 popular votes or [47%] but 185 electoral votes.

1888: Cleveland (D) with 5,540,365 popular votes or [49.3%] of the popular vote and 168 electoral votes lost to Harrison: (R) who had 5,445,269 popular votes or [47.8%] but 233 electoral votes.

1960 Nixon (R) with 34,108,157 popular votes or [49.3%] of the popular vote and 219 electoral votes lost to Kennedy (D) with 34,049,976 popular votes or [49.2%] of the popular vote and 303 electoral votes.

2000 Gore (D) with 50,158,094 popular votes or [48.64%] of the popular vote and 267 electoral votes lost to Bush (R) with 49,820,518 popular votes or [48.31%] of the popular vote and 271 electoral votes.

Some political scientists believe John F. Kennedy was a minority President in 1960.
The confusion stemmed from Alabama, where the presidential ballot listed only the electors and not the presidential candidates.

Consequently, some political scientists insist that in the popular vote, Kennedy should be credited with only five of every 11 Democratic votes from Alabama

Popular Myths About Popular Vote-Electoral College Splits

[Michael Z]

Truman over Dewey. All the others were, to all intents and purposes, 50/50 races (with the exception of 1912, for obvious ie mathematical reasons).

[Schmitz in 1972]

1948 got the honor of being #1 in my election rankings because it was such an upset.

2000 is an election that is somewhat of an upset, but is not as much of one as some people think. First off although the economy had boomed in 1995-1999, by November 2000 it was already starting to sink into the doldrums. Secondly, I know that many people were thoroughly disenchanted when Gore proclaimed that Clinton was a great president following the impeachment.

[MasterJedi]

Truman over Dewey.

[TomC]

It's probably Truman v Dewey, but I voted Cleveland v Blaine because the Dems had been out of power for sooo long; the opposite is true in 1948.

[gorkay]

I know it goes back a ways, but I think 1844 was the biggest upset. Henry Clay was one of the best-known men in the entire country, Polk was a virtual unknown and the first dark-horse nominee, yet Polk won.