Even assuming you were told the candidates, the only ones in the 20th century that would be anything close to the actual outcome would be 1912 (a Wilson win with <50% would be a given), 1932, 1936, 1964, and 1996. That leaves 20 out of 25 that weren't really predictable. I wanted to include 1944 and 1976, but I think most would overstate FDR and Carter's margins predicting those a year in advance.
Definitly not 1996 , Clinton popularity didnt recover till Newt shutdown the goverment in Dec 95 and Jan of 96.
OK, great point. It wasn't until just under a year before that 1996 became obvious. Then I would sub in 1944, as it was clear the Allies were going to win WWII by late 1943, and if the observer knew that FDR would run again as an incumbent while winning a war, they would obviously predict a substantial. That being said, I think they would be surprised that he only won by 7. But there was also going to be some uniform swing away from FDR because the great majority of men in the military could not vote back then, and men were more Dem than women in that era.
