New Hampshire

[Gustaf]

What you have to remember is that the US (like the UK) have a political system where you vote for candidates, not parties. Because of this things can get turned upside down rather easily due to personal charisma/unpopularity, etc. This is very clear in the US where someone like Reagan could win everywhere except extreme conservatism simply because voters supported him as president. This is why congressional elections really gives a better picture, since you get rid of some of the personal dynamics ruling presdential ones.

[Gustaf]

It should obviously be "despite extreme conservatism", not except (!), since it makes no sense. I was tired and English isn't my first language...

On and other point I think a two-party-system also contributes to upsets and dramatic changes in the electorate. I live in Sweden and we have had the same party in government for 62 out of the last 71 years (!!). One of the reasons for this is that discontented left-wingers tend to vote for another leftist party and vice-versa, instead of crossing bloc lines. In the US there really is nowhere else to go bt to the opposition which makes electoral fortunes change rather often.

[Gustaf]

I would think you are very correct...

In Sweden the right winged parties have actually once campaigned udner the slogan "support the oppsostion this year", which kind of says it all...

Also, the two occasions on which no-socialist governements have been elected, 1976 and 1991, have seen the two deepest economical crises since the depression.  

[Gustaf]

Sorry, jravnsbo, but there are a lot of off-topic threads in this forum. It's a jungle out there!

To Realpolitik: Not really no. In -76 the collapse came within months of the election, I think it might have been before the formal concede had been made. The real reason is probably that the Swedes only dare to vote for the right when the economy is doing really, really great. And that is always just before a depression.