Talk Elections

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.

Any involving FDR...

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...

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? :)
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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

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.

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."

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.

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 :)

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".

O.K then.
90% of the time.

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??

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

It's NOT an unfounded statement.

December is probably a bad month for polling-everyone is busy shopping, going to Christmas parties, hunting, etc...I wonder how the pollsters take all this into account?

They don't.

NorthernDog:
    I am also curious about when we will begin seeing state-by-state polling for the general.  However, I did recently see a poll in Florida which matched Bush against each major Democratic candidate: in each matchup, Bush had at least 56%.  (This poll was done by The Orlando Sentinel.)

Clearly something is going to have to happen before Florida becomes competitive. The primaries and campaign may provide the Dems a bounce early in 2004, but that won't be enough to survive summer and fall.

I'll try and find the source. It was based on voter identification with the Dems and GOP. The percentage who identified themselves as Republicans increased in most states, except in about 3 north eastern states, where they declined. New Hampshire showed the biggest decline since 2000, however it was only 2%, which I'm sure is within the margin of error. Iowa should the biggest increase in voters who regard themselves as Republicans.

Ah okay ;) I think I saw those figures too. I just didnt put too much emphasis on them as I dont know how voter identification impacts actual voting.

Its still well worth including as any part of a comprehensive study.

The most important thing about voter identification is that it is trending GOP.  I mean NEW people are coming into the party.  That means new voters but also new contributors, volunteers and everything else.  If numbers are stagant you have the same people.  But if you gain new people they had to take an affirmative step to join and generally you would think these people would be more active at least in the short term.

Too true, converts are always more devoted and enthusiastic than the average long time members........applies everywhere ......not just religions :D

After 1988 the GOP congratulated itself on having a lock on the electoral college. Little did they know they would lose the PV in 5 of the next 6 elections and the EV in 4 of the 6, with one (2000 FL) still controversial.