Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => U.S. Presidential Election Results => Topic started by: OSR stands with Israel on September 13, 2017, 04:02:14 PM



Title: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on September 13, 2017, 04:02:14 PM
1964-1988 Maps:


1964:

(
)

LBJ: 298
Goldwater : 240

1968:

(
)


Nixon : 302
Humphrey: 191
Wallace: 45

1972:

(
)

McGovern 273
Nixon 265


1976:

(
)

Ford : 284
Carter : 254


1980:

(
)

Carter 286
Reagan 252


1984:

(
)

Reagan 306
Mondale 232

1988:

(
)

Bush 283
Dukakis 255



 


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on September 13, 2017, 04:27:53 PM
1992-2016:


1992: 

(
)

Bush 275
Clinton 263


1996:

(
)

Clinton 279
Dole 259


2000:

(
)

Bush 301
Gore 237


2004:

(
)

Kerry 284
Bush 254

2008:

(
)

Obama 278
McCain 260

2012:

(
)

Obama 272
Romney 253
Too Close to call: 13(Virginia goes Obama using Atlas popular vote results , Romney using Wiki)


2016:

(
)

Trump 320
Clinton 218





Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on September 13, 2017, 04:36:19 PM
Things that I find surprising:

Illinois being more GOP than the nation in 1964

How similar 1976 OTL and 1980(in this one) are despite Reagan and Ford being from different wings of the GOP


Tennessee being the southern state more dem than the nation in 1984, despite convention wisdom thinking it would likely be Arkansas


Oregon being more GOP than nation in 1996





Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: MT Treasurer on September 15, 2017, 03:55:04 PM
Interesting, but uniform swing is not really a thing. I find it extremely unlikely that Trump would have lost ME in 2016 had the PV been tied or that Clinton would have lost OR in 1996, for example.


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: RINO Tom on September 15, 2017, 04:51:01 PM
I always think it's interesting (and criminally untalked about) how poorly Reagan did in the South in 1980 compared to the dominant "realignment" narrative that has come to rule our history books.


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: The Mikado on September 15, 2017, 04:58:32 PM
I always think it's interesting (and criminally untalked about) how poorly Reagan did in the South in 1980 compared to the dominant "realignment" narrative that has come to rule our history books.

True, but he was a Californian running against a VERY Southern politician. (A lot of people don't remember quite how Southern Jimmy Carter was, given how much he's changed in his post-presidency)


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: Virginiá on September 15, 2017, 05:42:23 PM
I always think it's interesting (and criminally untalked about) how poorly Reagan did in the South in 1980 compared to the dominant "realignment" narrative that has come to rule our history books.

In addition to what Mikado said, it also depends on how you view realignments. Personally, I've always looked at them through the theory of generational turnover in addition to unique elections. In this case, it might be fair to say that Reagan took advantage of a favorable electorate, and whose presidency, over the course of 6 - 8 years, shifted it further towards Republicans.


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS on September 15, 2017, 05:55:15 PM
There are some cases where using a uniform swing model for tied PV hypothetical is a failed structure.  In some elections, doing so results in Republicans getting less than 0% of the vote in DC for example.  That is impossible.


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on September 15, 2017, 06:10:14 PM
Washington, in terms of margin of victory, was actually more Republican than the nation in 1980, so it should be blue. 


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: RINO Tom on September 16, 2017, 08:54:20 AM
I always think it's interesting (and criminally untalked about) how poorly Reagan did in the South in 1980 compared to the dominant "realignment" narrative that has come to rule our history books.

In addition to what Mikado said, it also depends on how you view realignments. Personally, I've always looked at them through the theory of generational turnover in addition to unique elections. In this case, it might be fair to say that Reagan took advantage of a favorable electorate, and whose presidency, over the course of 6 - 8 years, shifted it further towards Republicans.

I didn't go in depth on my comment, but I just think the whole 1980 election gets misinterpreted as a "seal the deal on what 1968 started" election, and it doesn't appear that was the case.  When you look at the county maps, Reagan got murdered in the rural South and in the counties where Wallace did best.  The idea that a bunch of Dixiecrats preferred him over Carter because "they voted Republican now" is just not true.  Reagan eaked out wins in suburban and urban counties JUST enough to tip those Southern states, and - with the exception of MS - there seemed to be a strong correlation between a state being a part of "The New South" and it voting for Reagan.  I don't know, it's just a lot more interesting of a (true) story to look at all that than the usual textbook 1964 - 1968 - 1980 realignment bullshlt.  Your generational turnover is obviously a much better theory.


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: twenty42 on September 18, 2017, 12:21:31 AM
Great topic. Here are some of my observations.

--Out of these 14 elections, each party has had the EC advantage seven times. This tells me the stat is pretty random and self-correcting, and that there is no long-term inherent EC advantage for either party.

--The party with the EC advantage has won nine out of the 14 elections (64.3% frequency). So while having the EC advantage may give you an edge, it is certainly not necessary to win.

--Ronald Reagan may have run up his EV total with a lot of narrow wins in 1980, but it was still one of the great upsets of presidential election history. If the national polls leading up to the election turned out to be correct, Carter could've very well been reelected while losing the PV.

--The 1992-2012 "Blue Wall" had some cracks in it, even though they were invisible. NJ voted to the right of the nation in 1992, WI voted to the right of the nation in 1992 & 2000, and OR voted to the right of the nation in 1996 & 2000.

--There really is no such thing as uniform swing from one election to another. While most people on this forum...myself included...like to mentally masturbate over past election results and try to use them to determine the future, you really can't. The entire reason these maps exist is because states change relative to the nation from one election to the next. Would anybody have ever thought after 2012 that a 2.1% Democratic victory in the PV would only get them to 232 EV's?


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on September 18, 2017, 01:04:08 AM
Great topic. Here are some of my observations.

--Out of these 14 elections, each party has had the EC advantage seven times. This tells me the stat is pretty random and self-correcting, and that there is no long-term inherent EC advantage for either party.

--The party with the EC advantage has won nine out of the 14 elections (64.3% frequency). So while having the EC advantage may give you an edge, it is certainly not necessary to win.

--Ronald Reagan may have run up his EV total with a lot of narrow wins in 1980, but it was still one of the great upsets of presidential election history. If the national polls leading up to the election turned out to be correct, Carter could've very well been reelected while losing the PV.

--The 1992-2012 "Blue Wall" had some cracks in it, even though they were invisible. NJ voted to the right of the nation in 1992, WI voted to the right of the nation in 1992 & 2000, and OR voted to the right of the nation in 1996 & 2000.

--There really is no such thing as uniform swing from one election to another. While most people on this forum...myself included...like to mentally masturbate over past election results and try to use them to determine the future, you really can't. The entire reason these maps exist is because states change relative to the nation from one election to the next. Would anybody have ever thought after 2012 that a 2.1% Democratic victory in the PV would only get them to 232 EV's?


Carter was down by 3 points in the final polls , and the map would look like this in that case


(
)

Reagan 320
Carter 218


Its stunning though how other than Texas, Florida,Virginia Carter would have swept the south in this scenario. I think this proves that the real realignment in the south came in 1984.


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on September 18, 2017, 02:10:06 AM
So this got me wondering if 1932 was as big of a realignment as I previously thought it was? So lets do the maps of 1924-1936 if the PV was tied to see when the realignment really was.

1924:

(
)

Coolidge 310
Davis 208
La Follette 13

This map looks like 1916 except its a GOP victory, and the progressives are taking lots of votes away from the Democrats in the West


1928:

(
)

Smith 296
Hoover 227
Tied 8

Man its insane how similar this map looks like to 1976(which is considered the last election where the new deal coalition was able to win an election for the democrats)


1932:

(
)

FDR 270
Hoover 261


Wow so Smith PVI did better in North East the Roosevelt did


1936:

(
)

Landon 309
FDR 222











Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: 15 Down, 35 To Go on September 20, 2017, 08:58:00 PM
2000-2004 is really interesting, considering several states flipped (IA, WI, NH, OR, and OH), but they all flipped in the same election.  Bush could well have won the popular vote and lost four years after losing the popular vote and winning.


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: Statilius the Epicurean on September 27, 2017, 07:14:11 AM
Wow so Trump had the most efficient EV spread of any candidate in modern US presidential history. Interesting.


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: Obama-Biden Democrat on September 27, 2017, 04:38:12 PM
Wow so Trump had the most efficient EV spread of any candidate in modern US presidential history. Interesting.

Nixon in 1968 had a pretty good spread. He only won by .5%, but crushed Humphrey electorally.


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: 60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED on October 01, 2017, 10:57:23 AM
Wow so Trump had the most efficient EV spread of any candidate in modern US presidential history. Interesting.

That's how he was in the primaries as well.

Clinton had a million SuperPacs and a billion dollars too lmao! It's actually one of the reasons I voted for Trump - the ability to get things done with limited resources. Politicians love to waste money (as Jeb!, Sanders, and Clinton did).


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: 60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED on October 01, 2017, 10:59:12 AM
This makes me think - what the heck was Romney's path to 270?

I remember thinking the election was going to be close, but looking back at it, Romney had a 0.1% shot to win. I could see him getting to 266 (VA, OH, FL) but nothing passed that.

I remember him visiting Pennsylvania but that was like a day before the election. He tried Colorado and New Hampshire for a bit, did he even make a case in Nevada?

In 2016 Trump worked hard and focused on states early. Started hitting PA, MI, NH, NV, and FL right away.


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: Holy Unifying Centrist on October 01, 2017, 11:22:29 AM
This makes me think - what the heck was Romney's path to 270?

I remember thinking the election was going to be close, but looking back at it, Romney had a 0.1% shot to win. I could see him getting to 266 (VA, OH, FL) but nothing passed that.

I remember him visiting Pennsylvania but that was like a day before the election. He tried Colorado and New Hampshire for a bit, did he even make a case in Nevada?

In 2016 Trump worked hard and focused on states early. Started hitting PA, MI, NH, NV, and FL right away.

Yeah Romney's path was super inefficient. In the polls in 2012, it was possible that Romney could have won the popular vote, but it was never really in question that Obama would win the electoral vote and thus the presidency.

Obama was too strong in the usually swingy Rust Belt.


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: twenty42 on October 01, 2017, 02:38:20 PM
This makes me think - what the heck was Romney's path to 270?

I remember thinking the election was going to be close, but looking back at it, Romney had a 0.1% shot to win. I could see him getting to 266 (VA, OH, FL) but nothing passed that.

IA was pretty hard fought...Obama overperformed there in the final margins.

But yes, Romney really had nowhere to go other than that exact path. A PV/EV split favoring the Democrats was very possible that year...there was an hour or so there after the election was called for Obama that networks were reporting that Romney would probably end up winning the PV.


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: mianfei on December 02, 2017, 02:53:09 AM
1940 to 1956 (reverse chronological order):

1956:

(
)

Stevenson: 287
Eisenhower: 244

1952:

(
)

Eisenhower: 284
Stevenson: 247

The two are not that different, but it does show that 1956 was a “farm crisis” election affected by the long drought on the Great Plains during the middle of that decade.

1948:

(
)

Dewey: 281
Truman: 212
Thurmond: 38

1944:

(
)

Dewey: 316
Franklin D. Roosevelt: 215

1940:

(
)

Willkie: 315
Franklin D. Roosevelt: 216

One surprise for me is how early Washington State turned Democratic relative to the nation. Like California and Oregon, it was (apart from Wilson in 1916) effectively a one-party Republican bastion during the “System of 1896”, yet it was more Democratic than the nation during every election from 1936 to 1972 except for 1960 when the state’s anti-Catholic tendencies were influential.


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on December 02, 2017, 03:24:21 AM
Here's 1960:


(
)


Illinois is basically a tie


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on December 02, 2017, 03:25:24 AM
so Based on this 1960 was the realigning election not 1964/1968


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: mianfei on December 02, 2017, 04:05:59 AM
1892 to 1920 excluding 1912 (reverse chronological order):

1920:

(
)

Harding: 283
Cox: 248

1916:

(
)

Hughes: 277
Wilson: 254
(exact opposite of actual electoral vote!)

1908:

(
)

Taft: 257
Bryan: 226

1904:

(
)

Parker: 240
Roosevelt: 236

1900:

(
)

McKinley: 258
Bryan: 189

1896:

(
)

McKinley: 247
Bryan: 200

1892:

(
)

Cleveland: 226
Harrison: 208
Weaver: 10


Title: Re: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on September 06, 2022, 01:15:52 AM
2020 Was this(Will use old map for this):

(
)

Trump 311
Biden 227