Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 18, 2017, 04:20:04 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: How each election's map would look like if the PV was tied  (Read 805 times)
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7537


View Profile
« on: September 13, 2017, 04:02:14 pm »
Ignore

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 295
Reagan 243


1984:



Reagan 306
Mondale 232

1988:



Bush 283
Dukakis 255



 
Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7537


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2017, 04:27:53 pm »
Ignore

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



Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7537


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2017, 04:36:19 pm »
Ignore

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



Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14870
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2017, 03:55:04 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8130
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -4.70

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2017, 04:51:01 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16341


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2017, 04:58:32 pm »
Ignore

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)
Logged



The Handsome Monkey King Son Wukong weighs in on politics.
Virginia
Virginia C
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8284
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2017, 05:42:23 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 681


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

P
View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2017, 05:55:15 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged


I never use toss ups.

Current predictions:

Senate 2017/2018:

Here

Governor 2018/2019:

Here

Solid D
Likely D
Lean D
Lean R
Likely R
Solid R
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4804
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2017, 06:10:14 pm »
Ignore

Washington, in terms of margin of victory, was actually more Republican than the nation in 1980, so it should be blue. 
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8130
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -4.70

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2017, 08:54:20 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President
twenty42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 275
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2017, 12:21:31 am »
Ignore

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?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 12:42:37 am by twenty42 »Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7537


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2017, 01:04:08 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7537


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2017, 02:10:06 am »
Ignore

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









« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 02:27:00 am by Old School Republican »Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
ExtremeConservative
ExtremeRepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5253


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: 8.96

P
View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2017, 08:58:00 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Far-right social, fiscal, and neo-conservative.  Centrist on immigration.  Abortion is murder!

The conservative movement is being damaged massively by Donald Trump.  Other than Neil Gorsuch, we have failed to have any meaningful accomplishments that were not potentially temporary executive orders.  That, combined with the off year election results tell me that I'M READY FOR PENCE
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1407
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2017, 07:14:11 am »
Ignore

Wow so Trump had the most efficient EV spread of any candidate in modern US presidential history. Interesting.
Logged

They who have put out the people's eyes, reproach them of their blindness.
Zyzz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1028


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2017, 04:38:12 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 870


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2017, 10:57:23 am »
Ignore

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).
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 870


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2017, 10:59:12 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged
DTC
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 294


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2017, 11:22:29 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Endorsements:

VA-Senate: Steve Bannon
AL-Senate: Roy Moore
NJ-Gov: Kim Guadagno
UT-Senate: Mitt Romney
twenty42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 275
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2017, 02:38:20 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines