Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 20, 2014, 03:14:54 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  "Lock" on the Presidency???
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: "Lock" on the Presidency???  (Read 11494 times)
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« on: November 08, 2003, 12:52:41 pm »
Ignore

I remember that in 1988 after George Bush I had held the white house for the GOP for the third consecutive term people were talking about a GOP lock on the Presidency. (Remember that with the exception of 1976 no democrat had won since 1964)

My grandfather had mentioned that when he was young and Truman held the White House for the fifth democratic term, people had begun to believe that democratic rule would continue till vast changes occurred in the US.

In both case they were wrong and right now its pretty certain no one has a "lock" on the White House. However its an interesting thought......That at some point of time due to some combination of demographics or regional issues etc one party may have been CERTAIN to win the electoral college.  

Does anyone agree with this concept? That one party’s lock on the electoral vote was so complete, the other shouldn’t have bothered to even nominate a candidate? Maybe for Dems in 1964 or Reps in 1972. I personally don’t think so but I would be interested in hearing an opposing viewpoint.
Logged

Quote
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56804
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2003, 01:43:06 pm »
Ignore

Any involving FDR...
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2003, 10:48:32 pm »
Ignore

The only "lock" I can think of, that hasn't already been mentioned, is probably from 1861 to 1885, when the Presidency was pretty much controlled by the Republicans. True, Andrew Johnson was a Democrat, however he wasn't elected President. But in 1872, people pretty much KNEW that Ulysses S. Grant would be elected again. The ex-General Civil War hero, who couldn't be beaten by the evil Democrats who helped bring upon the War Between the States. However, Grant turned out to be one of history's worst Presidents, and people were willing to turn to the Democrats once again. Which, of course, lead to the 1876 election, which prooved that Democrats could win elections again, since they won the popular vote and Benjamin Harrison won by just ONE electoral vote. To look even further back, from 1801 to 1829, the Democratic-Republican party (Go Dem-Reps!) controlled the White House. It seems that when you look at the past, people had a one set mind for nearly 20 years at a time, until they turned to the other side of the political spectrum. But now people jump back and forth from party to party quicker than a jackrabbit on a hot August day.
Note: I'm not quite sure what that metaphore meant. You figure it out...
« Last Edit: November 08, 2003, 10:49:59 pm by Demrepdan »Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2003, 09:38:36 am »
Ignore

Good post!

I'm still not certain I want to agree that a "lock" even existed since the 1860 start of the democrat- republican two party system. Before that I cannot say with certainty.

As to Demrepdans suggestion that a republican lock existed from 1861 to 1885 I would say that certainly the country was tilted towards them but I am uncertain of a lock (which would mean democrats had no chance at all)
The 1868 election is indicative of this. It was not certain from the start and could well have been much closer than is generally believed. Grant won by carrying several southern states because he received nearly 100% of the black vote and many white voters did not participate. (WOW!!! those were different times huh? Smiley
It is widely believed that he lost the white vote to Sam Tilden and while a lot of people voted for him because of his war record, their vote was not certain from the start but the war record was the deciding factor at the end. The result of this election was by no means certain from the start.

Note: Obviously there was no polling at the time and this is based on contemporary records.



Quote from:  link=board=2;threadid=40;start=0#msg413 date=1068349712
The only "lock" I can think of, that hasn't already been mentioned, is probably , when the Presidency was pretty much controlled by the Republicans. True, Andrew Johnson was a Democrat, however he wasn't elected President. But in 1872, people pretty much KNEW that Ulysses S. Grant would be elected again. The ex-General Civil War hero, who couldn't be beaten by the evil Democrats who helped bring upon the War Between the States. However, Grant turned out to be one of history's worst Presidents, and people were willing to turn to the Democrats once again. Which, of course, lead to the 1876 election, which prooved that Democrats could win elections again, since they won the popular vote and Benjamin Harrison won by just ONE electoral vote. To look even further back, from 1801 to 1829, the Democratic-Republican party (Go Dem-Reps!) controlled the White House. It seems that when you look at the past, people had a one set mind for nearly 20 years at a time, until they turned to the other side of the political spectrum. But now people jump back and forth from party to party quicker than a jackrabbit on a hot August day.
Note: I'm not quite sure what that metaphore meant. You figure it out...
Quote
Logged

Quote
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2003, 09:43:55 am »
Ignore

Any involving FDR...

Quite possibly........... though I still maintain that certainly the country was tilted towards them but I am uncertain of a lock (which would mean republicans had no chance at all)

While 1932 was probably in the bag for FDR soon as he got the nomination the elections of 1940 and 1944 were not assured victories though very very likely. Please note that I am aware that the actual elections were landslides for FDR but my point is that under a different but plausible set of circumstances, the GOP MIGHT have won.

My definition of a "lock" would be when no plausible set of circumstances or actions of either candidate or party could have produced a different result.
Logged

Quote
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2003, 01:04:14 pm »
Ignore

I don't think one party will ever have a long-term lock on the presidency.

Under true democracy, the two parties will split roughly 50-50 over the long term.  That was not true in the south for a long period after the civil war, but the south cannot be considered to have been a true democracy during that period.

In the modern political era (post 1968), vote splits in the south have returned to more normal split of 60-40 Republican in presidential elections.

I think that under a competitive system, there is a natural correcting mechanism if one party becomes too dominant.  The other party will eventually figure out why it can't attract support, and change its positions.  Also, a dominant party will eventually split into factions that will open up possibilities for the opposition party.

The Democrats were locked out of the presidency for most of the period from 1968-1992 because they did not offer positions on issues that could attract sufficient nationwide support.  The party changed (or appeared to change) in 1992, and conditions also changed at that time to the benefit of the Democrats, de-emphasizing issues where the Democrats had been particularly weak (such as national defense) in the past, opening the way for Democratic victories in the next 2 elections.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16058


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2003, 04:43:10 pm »
Ignore

I think that Republicans may have had a lock on the presidency between 1896 and 1928. The only reason Wilson won is because of the Republican split between the Bull Moose and Taft, if you look at the vote totals, had the Republicans been united they would have won by a landslide. Also, the 1916 election was the narrowest in the entire 20th century, despite the strong economy and the fact that Wilson kept the U.S. out of the war.
Logged

NorthernDog
Full Member
***
Posts: 167


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2003, 07:30:05 pm »
Ignore

In 1992 James Carville was asked if the Democrats had removed the GOP's "electoral lock", since Clinton carried several southern states.  He stated at the time that no, they had only "picked the lock".  I now underdstand his comment - the electoral college breakdown has reverted to its 1980s pattern, with a few exceptions of course, like California and Vermont.
With a consistent GOP base in the Great Plains, most of the south and Rocky Mountains, they definately have an advantage.  OTOH the Democrats have suffered two 49-state blowouts in recent history.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15199
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2003, 02:07:48 am »
Ignore

Ryan,
Grant didn't run against Tilden. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the Electoral against Hayes in 1876, after Grant had retired.
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2003, 04:59:01 am »
Ignore

Ryan,
Grant didn't run against Tilden. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the Electoral against Hayes in 1876, after Grant had retired.

U are quite right. It was Horatio Seymour that Grant ran against. I was thinking about that race too at the time and got the names mixed up. Thanks for pointing it out. Smiley
Logged

Quote
emergingDmajority
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2003, 11:36:24 pm »
Ignore

Term limits and election "shenanigans" have prevented a Clinton/Dem lock on the presidency. Otherwise we'd be talking 4th term here : )


« Last Edit: November 10, 2003, 11:37:17 pm by emergingDmajority »Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16058


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2003, 05:49:30 pm »
Ignore

On the other hand, had it not been for Linda Tripp and the whole scandal in 1998, Gore would not have pursued the strategy of "distancing" himself from his economically successful predecessor. If Gore had become President and 9-11 had happened (although there is ample evidence that Democrats were more serious about antiterrorism and Republicans preferred to dawdle in missile defense plans), Democrats would have reaped the big bounce that Republicans reaped post-9/11.
Logged

KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8536
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2003, 05:53:00 am »
Ignore

To look even further back, from 1801 to 1829, the Democratic-Republican party (Go Dem-Reps!) controlled the White House.

I don't know if that's really a valid description.  Sure, technically, they were all Dem-Reps, but there were some major differences between the candidates.  Monroe - J. Q. Adams can be described as "National Republicans," the pre-cursors of the Whigs.  Jackson and Van Buren were true "Democrats."
Logged
emergingDmajority1
Full Member
***
Posts: 245


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2003, 07:07:43 pm »
Ignore

Clinton never had a chance to get Bin Ladin, this is just a lie made up by con man Mansoor Ijaz that has become a major GOP talking point. Sudan was trying to get sanctions lifted because they sponsored terrorism and wanted it to happen before handing over Bin Ladin. It was blackmail.
Logged

NorthernDog
Full Member
***
Posts: 167


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2003, 11:55:26 am »
Ignore

When to you guys expect to start seeing state-by-state polls of the Presidential Election?  Do they wait for the primaries to be wrapped up?  I saw a New York state poll on DailyKOS.com and Bush was trailing all potential Democrats but only by about 8 points.  Republicans could have a lock on this election already if the close states in 2000 election are all tilting to Bush already Smiley
Logged
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56804
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2003, 12:18:05 pm »
Ignore

Undecided voters will spilt about 75% against Bush. Remember that.
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2003, 02:46:34 pm »
Ignore

Undecided voters will spilt about 75% against Bush. Remember that.

I'm aware of the Historical precedent for that but I do caution against making it gospel truth. Note you said "WILL" not "should or might".
Logged

Quote
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56804
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2003, 03:39:16 pm »
Ignore

O.K then.
90% of the time.
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
English
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1188


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2003, 08:46:25 am »
Ignore

I'm beginning to doubt if the Democrats can unseat Bush in 2004, especially considering they're behind in places like Minnesota! This is the sort of place they need to win just to break even! They really shouldn't be behind in Michigan, Wisconsin or Minnesota, these should be core Democratic states.
One thing I'm sure of, I predict the North East will swing to the Dems, even if the rest of the country goes the other way. I reckon Vermont, Mass & RI may give the Dems +60% or +70%. I also predict they'll gain New Hampshire off the GOP. This is one of the few states where the Republicans have lost support since 2000.
Logged

I live in the UK and regard myself as a socially liberal, economic centrist. I vote for the British Labour party and support the Canadian NDP and US Democratic parties.


Economic -2.38
Social -1.74
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2003, 12:13:50 pm »
Ignore

I'm beginning to doubt if the Democrats can unseat Bush in 2004, especially considering they're behind in places like Minnesota! This is the sort of place they need to win just to break even! They really shouldn't be behind in Michigan, Wisconsin or Minnesota, these should be core Democratic states.
One thing I'm sure of, I predict the North East will swing to the Dems, even if the rest of the country goes the other way. I reckon Vermont, Mass & RI may give the Dems +60% or +70%. I also predict they'll gain New Hampshire off the GOP. This is one of the few states where the Republicans have lost support since 2000.

Which specific figures are you looking at, not that I necessarily disagree with any of the conclusions.
I'm especially interested in the time frame of your numbers because for example the GOP has a trifecta in New Hamp. only last year winning all congressional and senate seats up, retaining the legislature and electing a Governor....all with healthier margins than the last.

When does your info say the swing towards democrats have occured??
Logged

Quote
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56804
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2003, 12:23:11 pm »
Ignore

I would actually guess(based on recent Gubernatorial results) that some north eastern states(especially NH but also CT) will swing towards the GOP, while the Dems rebound in Appalachia.

Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
JNB
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 395


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2003, 05:00:07 pm »
Ignore



 Realpolitik, your claims that Dems will rebound in Appalacia are completely unfounded, as I have said before, and you still do not understand American politics. Right now there are no indications that KY, TN or even WV will vote for any of the Democratic presidential canidates.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.23
JNB
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 395


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2003, 05:03:42 pm »
Ignore



 In the Midwest, the GOP has both houses in the MI, WI and IA state legislatures, and has a almost 2-1 majority in the MN state house and almost a 50-50n split in the MN state senate. These are all states won by Gore.

  As for NH, the GOP won all the major offices there in 2002, and NH has diverged from VT for quite some time. Dean may still win NH, but the local Democratic party in NH is qweaker now than it was in 2000.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.23
WONK
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 53


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2003, 02:54:27 am »
Ignore

I have to agree with the independent.  I see much more good news (in terms of polls and patterns) going in the Reps favor right now.
Logged
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56804
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 29, 2003, 08:54:01 am »
Ignore

It's NOT an unfounded statement.
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines