Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 18, 2017, 05:11:19 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  Which elections in the last 100 years were landslides?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Poll
Question: Which?
1920   -52 (7.1%)
1924   -47 (6.4%)
1928   -53 (7.2%)
1932   -58 (7.9%)
1936   -57 (7.8%)
1940   -37 (5%)
1944   -31 (4.2%)
1948   -2 (0.3%)
1952   -52 (7.1%)
1956   -54 (7.3%)
1960   -0 (0%)
1964   -55 (7.5%)
1968   -2 (0.3%)
1972   -59 (8%)
1976   -0 (0%)
1980   -47 (6.4%)
1984   -60 (8.2%)
1988   -29 (3.9%)
1992   -9 (1.2%)
1996   -12 (1.6%)
2000   -0 (0%)
2004   -0 (0%)
2008   -17 (2.3%)
2012   -0 (0%)
2016   -2 (0.3%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 61

Author Topic: Which elections in the last 100 years were landslides?  (Read 752 times)
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1141


View Profile
« on: November 17, 2017, 01:37:07 pm »
Ignore

I think all these elections are landslides except 1948, 1960, 1968, 1976, and all the elections from 1988 and after.
Logged

I never use toss ups.

Current predictions
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7889


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2017, 01:57:32 pm »
Ignore

1920-1944 , 1952-1956 , 1964, 1972, 1980-1988
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
Arbitrage1980
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 466
View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2017, 07:05:17 pm »
Ignore

It's good to establish a quantitative metric for what a landslide is. I define it as an election in which the winner's popular vote margin is at least 10 point and/or wins at least 90% of the electoral votes (484+ electoral votes). By this metric, the last landslide was Reagan 1984, and before that, 1980, 1972, 1964, 1956, 1952, 1936, 1932, 1928, 1924, 1920.

Neither Bush 1988 nor Obama 2008 were true landslides, although people use those terms to describe them. Bush's 426 electoral votes were due to winning CA, IL, PA, by just a few points. He massively underperformed Reagan. Obama 2008 is interesting because he did win traditional GOP states of Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and NE02. But given the circumstances that heavily favored Obama-incumbent Republican President at 25% approval ratings, worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, unpopular war, terrible GOP nominee and a nutty running mate, charismatic first black major party nominee, massive fundraising advantage-he underperformed. I was actually surprised that McCain managed to hold onto his base and most of the traditional GOP states. He still managed to win TX by 12 points, GA by 5 points, and barely lost NC. He lost FL by just 2.8 points and OH by 4.6 points.

The most devastating landslides were 1920, 1924, 1936, and 1972, where you had YUGE electoral and popular vote margins, coupled with a sizable chunk of the other party defecting to the winner. Harding and Coolidge, for instance, won NYC due to the Irish defecting from the Democratic Party. They both won other major cities and absolutely destroyed Cox and Davis outside the Deep South. In 1972, 30% of registered Democrats voted for Nixon. He won Cook County, IL, Fulton County, GA, Queens NYC, Buffalo, areas even Regan could not carry.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 11:19:13 pm by Arbitrage1980 »Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1221


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2017, 10:25:28 pm »
Ignore

It's good to establish a quantitative metric for what a landslide is. I define it as an election in which the winner's popular vote margin is at least 10 point and/or wins at least 90% of the electoral votes (484+ electoral votes). By this metric, the last landslide was Reagan 1984.

Neither Bush 1988 nor Obama 2008 were true landslides, although people use those terms to describe them. Bush's 426 electoral votes were due to winning CA, IL, PA, by just a few points. He massively underperformed Reagan. Obama 2008 is interesting because he did win traditional GOP states of Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and NE02. But given the circumstances that heavily favored Obama-incumbent Republican President at 25% approval ratings, worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, unpopular war, terrible GOP nominee and a nutty running mate, charismatic first black major party nominee, massive fundraising advantage-he underperformed. I was actually surprised that McCain managed to hold onto his base and most of the traditional GOP states. He still managed to win TX by 12 points, GA by 5 points, and barely lost NC. He lost FL by just 2.8 points and OH by 4.6 points.


What if I told you that Obama being black wasn't an advantage but rather a trade-off? Clinton won the popular vote in the '08 democratic primary, that race went down to the wire. '08 polling also had Clinton beating Mccain in states like AK. Obama cost Democrats Blue Dog/White Working Class votes.

Palin really wasn't anymore 'nutty' than rubio, but she was the VP, all she needed to do was carry water for the top of the ticket. Both of those candidates had almost identical styles. They would use memorized speeches in response to expected questions. Put them in dynamic situations and force them to address unexpected issues and they don't know what to do. Could you imagine rubio as Mccain's VP in '08? What exactly would he have done differently? The entire GOP establishment consensus in '08 was to oppose the TARP, and then this changed shortly thereafter to supporting TARP.
Logged
Arbitrage1980
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 466
View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2017, 10:43:55 pm »
Ignore

It's good to establish a quantitative metric for what a landslide is. I define it as an election in which the winner's popular vote margin is at least 10 point and/or wins at least 90% of the electoral votes (484+ electoral votes). By this metric, the last landslide was Reagan 1984.

Neither Bush 1988 nor Obama 2008 were true landslides, although people use those terms to describe them. Bush's 426 electoral votes were due to winning CA, IL, PA, by just a few points. He massively underperformed Reagan. Obama 2008 is interesting because he did win traditional GOP states of Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and NE02. But given the circumstances that heavily favored Obama-incumbent Republican President at 25% approval ratings, worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, unpopular war, terrible GOP nominee and a nutty running mate, charismatic first black major party nominee, massive fundraising advantage-he underperformed. I was actually surprised that McCain managed to hold onto his base and most of the traditional GOP states. He still managed to win TX by 12 points, GA by 5 points, and barely lost NC. He lost FL by just 2.8 points and OH by 4.6 points.


What if I told you that Obama being black wasn't an advantage but rather a trade-off? Clinton won the popular vote in the '08 democratic primary, that race went down to the wire. '08 polling also had Clinton beating Mccain in states like AK. Obama cost Democrats Blue Dog/White Working Class votes.

Palin really wasn't anymore 'nutty' than rubio, but she was the VP, all she needed to do was carry water for the top of the ticket. Both of those candidates had almost identical styles. They would use memorized speeches in response to expected questions. Put them in dynamic situations and force them to address unexpected issues and they don't know what to do. Could you imagine rubio as Mccain's VP in '08? What exactly would he have done differently? The entire GOP establishment consensus in '08 was to oppose the TARP, and then this changed shortly thereafter to supporting TARP.


1. Obama's race did hurt him with some racist whites, especially in Deep South and Appalachia, but that had no impact on the electoral college as no Democrat was going to win those states. It's laughable to think that the awful unlikable Hillary was going to win WV, KY, TN, LA, AK. The country and especially the media were HUNGRY for a smart charismatic black President, and he was hyped up as the second coming of the Messiah. The media did not vet him nor ask tough questions about his background. His only real tough moment was the Jeremiah Wright scandal, and he passed with flying colors after giving that race speech in Philadelphia (a very far cry from Obama's racial divisiveness as POTUS).

2. Rubio, unlike Palin, is knowledgeable on policy and can talk policy at depth. I've seen his interviews and read his policy platform. Sure, he gives canned speeches, just like any other politician. And he did wilt under pressure at the NH debate. But to compare him to "I can see Russia from my house," and not being able to name a newspaper she reads, Sarah Palin, is ridiculous.

Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1221


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2017, 11:03:16 pm »
Ignore

It's good to establish a quantitative metric for what a landslide is. I define it as an election in which the winner's popular vote margin is at least 10 point and/or wins at least 90% of the electoral votes (484+ electoral votes). By this metric, the last landslide was Reagan 1984.

Neither Bush 1988 nor Obama 2008 were true landslides, although people use those terms to describe them. Bush's 426 electoral votes were due to winning CA, IL, PA, by just a few points. He massively underperformed Reagan. Obama 2008 is interesting because he did win traditional GOP states of Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and NE02. But given the circumstances that heavily favored Obama-incumbent Republican President at 25% approval ratings, worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, unpopular war, terrible GOP nominee and a nutty running mate, charismatic first black major party nominee, massive fundraising advantage-he underperformed. I was actually surprised that McCain managed to hold onto his base and most of the traditional GOP states. He still managed to win TX by 12 points, GA by 5 points, and barely lost NC. He lost FL by just 2.8 points and OH by 4.6 points.


What if I told you that Obama being black wasn't an advantage but rather a trade-off? Clinton won the popular vote in the '08 democratic primary, that race went down to the wire. '08 polling also had Clinton beating Mccain in states like AR. Obama cost Democrats Blue Dog/White Working Class votes.

Palin really wasn't anymore 'nutty' than rubio, but she was the VP, all she needed to do was carry water for the top of the ticket. Both of those candidates had almost identical styles. They would use memorized speeches in response to expected questions. Put them in dynamic situations and force them to address unexpected issues and they don't know what to do. Could you imagine rubio as Mccain's VP in '08? What exactly would he have done differently? The entire GOP establishment consensus in '08 was to oppose the TARP, and then this changed shortly thereafter to supporting TARP.


1. Obama's race did hurt him with some racist whites, especially in Deep South and Appalachia, but that had no impact on the electoral college as no Democrat was going to win those states. It's laughable to think that the awful unlikable Hillary was going to win WV, KY, TN, LA, AK. The country and especially the media were HUNGRY for a smart charismatic black President, and he was hyped up as the second coming of the Messiah. The media did not vet him nor ask tough questions about his background. His only real tough moment was the Jeremiah Wright scandal, and he passed with flying colors after giving that race speech in Philadelphia (a very far cry from Obama's racial divisiveness as POTUS).

2. Rubio, unlike Palin, is knowledgeable on policy and can talk policy at depth. I've seen his interviews and read his policy platform. Sure, he gives canned speeches, just like any other politician. And he did wilt under pressure at the NH debate. But to compare him to "I can see Russia from my house," and not being able to name a newspaper she reads, Sarah Palin, is ridiculous.



Bush beat Kerry by a similar margin in VA as he did in AR. There were many blue dog democrats who were frustrated by he GOP.

Obama also brought up 'bitter clingers', and he didn't get away with them, the pre-Lehman Brothers polling showed Mccain to be competitive for that reason. That's also why Clinton virtually tied Obama in the '08 primary. As soon as the economic crisis hit, the narrative changed to the economy under a GOP president.

Palin never said that, that was Tina Fey. It wasn't just the NH debate, in the following debates with Trump, where he tried to go off-script, he descended into juvenile jokes, proving Chris Christie's point that he 'gets unruly when he gets off his talking points'. Rubio is a CC-transfer student, and he had his entire career given to him by Jeb, don't try to pass him off as an intellectual paragon.
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1221


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2017, 11:10:18 pm »
Ignore

^If you watch the interviews featuring rubio, you can always observe this pattern, as soon as a tough question is asked about a specific detail of one of his policy proposals, he simply pivots and does not answer.

Rubio simply doesn't know how to give detailed answers to questions:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2015/06/11/on-marijuana-legalization-most-presidential-candidates-agree-with-fiorina-not-christie/

Whether on Federal Drug Law Enforcement, or Immigration, etc. it's always the same answer.

That's the same style as Palin.
Logged
Arbitrage1980
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 466
View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2017, 11:14:27 pm »
Ignore

It's good to establish a quantitative metric for what a landslide is. I define it as an election in which the winner's popular vote margin is at least 10 point and/or wins at least 90% of the electoral votes (484+ electoral votes). By this metric, the last landslide was Reagan 1984.

Neither Bush 1988 nor Obama 2008 were true landslides, although people use those terms to describe them. Bush's 426 electoral votes were due to winning CA, IL, PA, by just a few points. He massively underperformed Reagan. Obama 2008 is interesting because he did win traditional GOP states of Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and NE02. But given the circumstances that heavily favored Obama-incumbent Republican President at 25% approval ratings, worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, unpopular war, terrible GOP nominee and a nutty running mate, charismatic first black major party nominee, massive fundraising advantage-he underperformed. I was actually surprised that McCain managed to hold onto his base and most of the traditional GOP states. He still managed to win TX by 12 points, GA by 5 points, and barely lost NC. He lost FL by just 2.8 points and OH by 4.6 points.


What if I told you that Obama being black wasn't an advantage but rather a trade-off? Clinton won the popular vote in the '08 democratic primary, that race went down to the wire. '08 polling also had Clinton beating Mccain in states like AR. Obama cost Democrats Blue Dog/White Working Class votes.

Palin really wasn't anymore 'nutty' than rubio, but she was the VP, all she needed to do was carry water for the top of the ticket. Both of those candidates had almost identical styles. They would use memorized speeches in response to expected questions. Put them in dynamic situations and force them to address unexpected issues and they don't know what to do. Could you imagine rubio as Mccain's VP in '08? What exactly would he have done differently? The entire GOP establishment consensus in '08 was to oppose the TARP, and then this changed shortly thereafter to supporting TARP.


1. Obama's race did hurt him with some racist whites, especially in Deep South and Appalachia, but that had no impact on the electoral college as no Democrat was going to win those states. It's laughable to think that the awful unlikable Hillary was going to win WV, KY, TN, LA, AK. The country and especially the media were HUNGRY for a smart charismatic black President, and he was hyped up as the second coming of the Messiah. The media did not vet him nor ask tough questions about his background. His only real tough moment was the Jeremiah Wright scandal, and he passed with flying colors after giving that race speech in Philadelphia (a very far cry from Obama's racial divisiveness as POTUS).

2. Rubio, unlike Palin, is knowledgeable on policy and can talk policy at depth. I've seen his interviews and read his policy platform. Sure, he gives canned speeches, just like any other politician. And he did wilt under pressure at the NH debate. But to compare him to "I can see Russia from my house," and not being able to name a newspaper she reads, Sarah Palin, is ridiculous.



Bush beat Kerry by a similar margin in VA as he did in AR. There were many blue dog democrats who were frustrated by he GOP.

Obama also brought up 'bitter clingers', and he didn't get away with them, the pre-Lehman Brothers polling showed Mccain to be competitive for that reason. That's also why Clinton virtually tied Obama in the '08 primary. As soon as the economic crisis hit, the narrative changed to the economy under a GOP president.

Palin never said that, that was Tina Fey. It wasn't just the NH debate, in the following debates with Trump, where he tried to go off-script, he descended into juvenile jokes, proving Chris Christie's point that he 'gets unruly when he gets off his talking points'. Rubio is a CC-transfer student, and he had his entire career given to him by Jeb, don't try to pass him off as an intellectual paragon.

Correction: Palin's exact words were "they're our next door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from the land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." That was in response to a foreign policy question, so although my earlier phrase was not entirely accurate, the point remains the same.

I never said Rubio was an intellectual heavyweight. You have this bad habit of attributing arguments to others that they never made. My point was merely that Rubio was far more knowledgeable than Palin. Sure, it's a low bar, but we were never comparing Rubio to a Bill Clinton.

Obama's losses relative to Gore and Kerry in appalachia has a lot more to do with his cultural liberalism, and coming from big city politics, than it does with his race. Unless of course you want to attribute racism to millions of white Americans.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7889


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2017, 11:24:59 pm »
Ignore

It's good to establish a quantitative metric for what a landslide is. I define it as an election in which the winner's popular vote margin is at least 10 point and/or wins at least 90% of the electoral votes (484+ electoral votes). By this metric, the last landslide was Reagan 1984.

Neither Bush 1988 nor Obama 2008 were true landslides, although people use those terms to describe them. Bush's 426 electoral votes were due to winning CA, IL, PA, by just a few points. He massively underperformed Reagan. Obama 2008 is interesting because he did win traditional GOP states of Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and NE02. But given the circumstances that heavily favored Obama-incumbent Republican President at 25% approval ratings, worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, unpopular war, terrible GOP nominee and a nutty running mate, charismatic first black major party nominee, massive fundraising advantage-he underperformed. I was actually surprised that McCain managed to hold onto his base and most of the traditional GOP states. He still managed to win TX by 12 points, GA by 5 points, and barely lost NC. He lost FL by just 2.8 points and OH by 4.6 points.


What if I told you that Obama being black wasn't an advantage but rather a trade-off? Clinton won the popular vote in the '08 democratic primary, that race went down to the wire. '08 polling also had Clinton beating Mccain in states like AR. Obama cost Democrats Blue Dog/White Working Class votes.

Palin really wasn't anymore 'nutty' than rubio, but she was the VP, all she needed to do was carry water for the top of the ticket. Both of those candidates had almost identical styles. They would use memorized speeches in response to expected questions. Put them in dynamic situations and force them to address unexpected issues and they don't know what to do. Could you imagine rubio as Mccain's VP in '08? What exactly would he have done differently? The entire GOP establishment consensus in '08 was to oppose the TARP, and then this changed shortly thereafter to supporting TARP.


1. Obama's race did hurt him with some racist whites, especially in Deep South and Appalachia, but that had no impact on the electoral college as no Democrat was going to win those states. It's laughable to think that the awful unlikable Hillary was going to win WV, KY, TN, LA, AK. The country and especially the media were HUNGRY for a smart charismatic black President, and he was hyped up as the second coming of the Messiah. The media did not vet him nor ask tough questions about his background. His only real tough moment was the Jeremiah Wright scandal, and he passed with flying colors after giving that race speech in Philadelphia (a very far cry from Obama's racial divisiveness as POTUS).

2. Rubio, unlike Palin, is knowledgeable on policy and can talk policy at depth. I've seen his interviews and read his policy platform. Sure, he gives canned speeches, just like any other politician. And he did wilt under pressure at the NH debate. But to compare him to "I can see Russia from my house," and not being able to name a newspaper she reads, Sarah Palin, is ridiculous.



Bush beat Kerry by a similar margin in VA as he did in AR. There were many blue dog democrats who were frustrated by he GOP.

Obama also brought up 'bitter clingers', and he didn't get away with them, the pre-Lehman Brothers polling showed Mccain to be competitive for that reason. That's also why Clinton virtually tied Obama in the '08 primary. As soon as the economic crisis hit, the narrative changed to the economy under a GOP president.

Palin never said that, that was Tina Fey. It wasn't just the NH debate, in the following debates with Trump, where he tried to go off-script, he descended into juvenile jokes, proving Chris Christie's point that he 'gets unruly when he gets off his talking points'. Rubio is a CC-transfer student, and he had his entire career given to him by Jeb, don't try to pass him off as an intellectual paragon.

Correction: Palin's exact words were "they're our next door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from the land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." That was in response to a foreign policy question, so although my earlier phrase was not entirely accurate, the point remains the same.

I never said Rubio was an intellectual heavyweight. You have this bad habit of attributing arguments to others that they never made. My point was merely that Rubio was far more knowledgeable than Palin. Sure, it's a low bar, but we were never comparing Rubio to a Bill Clinton.

Obama's losses relative to Gore and Kerry in appalachia has a lot more to do with his cultural liberalism, and coming from big city politics, than it does with his race. Unless of course you want to attribute racism to millions of white Americans.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_Hillary_Clinton_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008#/media/File%3AMcCainClintonMatchup.png
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
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1221


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2017, 11:30:47 pm »
Ignore

It's good to establish a quantitative metric for what a landslide is. I define it as an election in which the winner's popular vote margin is at least 10 point and/or wins at least 90% of the electoral votes (484+ electoral votes). By this metric, the last landslide was Reagan 1984.

Neither Bush 1988 nor Obama 2008 were true landslides, although people use those terms to describe them. Bush's 426 electoral votes were due to winning CA, IL, PA, by just a few points. He massively underperformed Reagan. Obama 2008 is interesting because he did win traditional GOP states of Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and NE02. But given the circumstances that heavily favored Obama-incumbent Republican President at 25% approval ratings, worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, unpopular war, terrible GOP nominee and a nutty running mate, charismatic first black major party nominee, massive fundraising advantage-he underperformed. I was actually surprised that McCain managed to hold onto his base and most of the traditional GOP states. He still managed to win TX by 12 points, GA by 5 points, and barely lost NC. He lost FL by just 2.8 points and OH by 4.6 points.


What if I told you that Obama being black wasn't an advantage but rather a trade-off? Clinton won the popular vote in the '08 democratic primary, that race went down to the wire. '08 polling also had Clinton beating Mccain in states like AR. Obama cost Democrats Blue Dog/White Working Class votes.

Palin really wasn't anymore 'nutty' than rubio, but she was the VP, all she needed to do was carry water for the top of the ticket. Both of those candidates had almost identical styles. They would use memorized speeches in response to expected questions. Put them in dynamic situations and force them to address unexpected issues and they don't know what to do. Could you imagine rubio as Mccain's VP in '08? What exactly would he have done differently? The entire GOP establishment consensus in '08 was to oppose the TARP, and then this changed shortly thereafter to supporting TARP.


1. Obama's race did hurt him with some racist whites, especially in Deep South and Appalachia, but that had no impact on the electoral college as no Democrat was going to win those states. It's laughable to think that the awful unlikable Hillary was going to win WV, KY, TN, LA, AK. The country and especially the media were HUNGRY for a smart charismatic black President, and he was hyped up as the second coming of the Messiah. The media did not vet him nor ask tough questions about his background. His only real tough moment was the Jeremiah Wright scandal, and he passed with flying colors after giving that race speech in Philadelphia (a very far cry from Obama's racial divisiveness as POTUS).

2. Rubio, unlike Palin, is knowledgeable on policy and can talk policy at depth. I've seen his interviews and read his policy platform. Sure, he gives canned speeches, just like any other politician. And he did wilt under pressure at the NH debate. But to compare him to "I can see Russia from my house," and not being able to name a newspaper she reads, Sarah Palin, is ridiculous.



Bush beat Kerry by a similar margin in VA as he did in AR. There were many blue dog democrats who were frustrated by he GOP.

Obama also brought up 'bitter clingers', and he didn't get away with them, the pre-Lehman Brothers polling showed Mccain to be competitive for that reason. That's also why Clinton virtually tied Obama in the '08 primary. As soon as the economic crisis hit, the narrative changed to the economy under a GOP president.

Palin never said that, that was Tina Fey. It wasn't just the NH debate, in the following debates with Trump, where he tried to go off-script, he descended into juvenile jokes, proving Chris Christie's point that he 'gets unruly when he gets off his talking points'. Rubio is a CC-transfer student, and he had his entire career given to him by Jeb, don't try to pass him off as an intellectual paragon.

Correction: Palin's exact words were "they're our next door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from the land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." That was in response to a foreign policy question, so although my earlier phrase was not entirely accurate, the point remains the same.

I never said Rubio was an intellectual heavyweight. You have this bad habit of attributing arguments to others that they never made. My point was merely that Rubio was far more knowledgeable than Palin. Sure, it's a low bar, but we were never comparing Rubio to a Bill Clinton.

Obama's losses relative to Gore and Kerry in appalachia has a lot more to do with his cultural liberalism, and coming from big city politics, than it does with his race. Unless of course you want to attribute racism to millions of white Americans.


But you didn't address how Rubio followed a similar pattern as Palin with regards to their respective performances in dynamic engagements, they really weren't that different in terms of their candidacies. Like I said, how do you think Rubio as Mccain's VP in '08 would've handled the pressure? There wouldn't be much of a difference, there was no 'packaged talking point' available to use. Rubio & Palin had very similar weaknesses.

Clinton was running as more of centrist in '08, she opposed driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, while Obama supported supported them. Obama wiped out the old Blue Dog Democrats for a reason.

You forget to mention that Bill Clinton was still popular at the time, while Bush was utterly hated, there was also a large bench of Southern/Blue Dog Democrats, these are the people who strongly backed Clinton in '08. Clinton would've carried on the Clinton/Gore/Kerry coalition, instead of Obama who used a different path.

Certainly you can see how Clinton could've won MO in '08, and you can see how this might extend to AR, which was Bill Clinton's home state - of course.

^The above poster puts up one link with regards to Clinton's polling and I'll give you another one, Clinton electorally outpolled Obama:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/clintons-closing-argument-to-superdelegates/53314/
Logged
bagelman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2775
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2017, 12:10:05 am »
Ignore

everything from 1920-36, then '56, '64, '72, and most recently '84.

Close calls would be '52 and '80.
Logged

Arbitrage1980
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 466
View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2017, 01:06:11 am »
Ignore

everything from 1920-36, then '56, '64, '72, and most recently '84.

Close calls would be '52 and '80.

Yes. If you go by the criteria I outlined above, 1952 and 1980 qualify as landslides but barely. In 1952 Eisenhower does not meet the 90%+ electoral vote criteria but won the popular vote by 10.9%. In 1980 Reagan fell short on the poplar vote criteria, beating Carter by 9.7%, but he barely satisfied the electoral college criteria by garnering 489 votes.

Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1221


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2017, 01:22:16 am »
Ignore

everything from 1920-36, then '56, '64, '72, and most recently '84.

Close calls would be '52 and '80.

Yes. If you go by the criteria I outlined above, 1952 and 1980 qualify as landslides but barely. In 1952 Eisenhower does not meet the 90%+ electoral vote criteria but won the popular vote by 10.9%. In 1980 Reagan fell short on the poplar vote criteria, beating Carter by 9.7%, but he barely satisfied the electoral college criteria by garnering 489 votes.



What do you think about the '08 swing state polling? You see clear and definite differences between the electoral coalitions of Clinton and Obama. On the other hand, if you compare the GOP candidates in 2016, they mostly performed within the margin of error with each other in various swing states. For instance, Rubio was down in VA and OH. Only Kasich may have had a different electoral coalition based on courting a different type of independent voter.

What this suggests is that Rubio/Cruz/Walker/Jeb, etc. pretty much did not have a path to win without Trump voters, so imagine the context, you would have Trump calling the process 'rigged' and staging 'Days of Rage' riots at the convention like Roger Stone & Trump threatened to do during the primaries, which would precisely tank them with the critical voters they would need for their electoral coalition.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 519
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2017, 02:15:18 am »
Ignore

All of them were electoral landslides except 1924, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1976, and 1992-2016. A landslide IMHO is 400 or more electoral votes. With the popular vote factored in, 1980 is a close call.
Logged

AMB1996
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2017, 05:29:36 pm »
Ignore

The only ones I think are up for debate are 1944, 1992, and 2012.

Those are the three races where the tipping point state was decided by 4.5-5.5%, meaning a nationally-homogenous swing of <3% of the electorate would have flipped the result. In my mind, that means the result could have been decided by a few different chess moves, a better debate performance, or better luck. At least 3% of voters are still undecided late in the race, meaning that the result was questionable into mid-October.

I don't think they're landslides, but they're also clearly not ultra-close contests like 1948, 1960, 1968*, 1976*, 2000, 2004, and 2016. Everything else is a landslide in that the result was not in question. People here are really underselling the 1920-28 landslides because of the electoral vote, but the result was not close Democrats didn't come close to winning non-Southern states in those races.


* It's worth noting that '68 and '76 were supposed to be landslides going in, but the losers ran really strong campaigns uphill to make it close.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2017, 05:32:46 pm by AMB1996 »Logged

2018 Endorsements (competitive races only):
Gov:
Allan Fung (R-RI), Phil Scott (R-VT), Doug Ducey (R-AZ), Larry Hogan (R-MD)
Sen: Col. Lee Busby (I-AL), Jack Ciattarelli (R-NJ)
Congress: Leonard Lance (R-NJ7), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL16), Stephen Lynch (D-MA8), Pat Meehan (R-PA7), Will Hurd (R-TX23), Mia Love (R-UT4)
ScottieF
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 328


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2017, 10:11:20 pm »
Ignore

I define 'landslide' as a 10+ point margin of victory in the popular vote and 400+ electoral votes. So 1920, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, and 1984. 1940 and 1980 both come extremely close.
Logged
Harry S Truman, GM
Harry S Truman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7243


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2017, 10:59:24 pm »
Ignore

1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940 (though I could see an argument to the contrary), 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980 (see 1940), and 1984.
Logged



Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1141


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2017, 01:11:55 pm »
Ignore



this is what the result would be for 1920 if all votes from the South were removed and the rest of the nation was uniformly swung such that the NPV margin remained the same.

Edit: fixed errors.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 05:03:01 pm by Solid4096 »Logged

I never use toss ups.

Current predictions
America's Sweetheart ❤
TexArkana
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2301
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2017, 01:23:48 pm »
Ignore



this is what the result would be for 1920 if all votes from the South were removed and the rest of the nation was uniformly swung such that the NPV margin remained the same.
1920 was a truly impressive landslide, no doubt. As was 1924.
Logged

"For it is both a great honor, and my righteous duty, to eat that booty" - Abraham Lincoln
 
Rest in Peace John B. Anderson (1922-2017).
FF. Great sig.
The Govanah Jake
Jake Jewvinivisk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2197


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2017, 03:02:13 pm »
Ignore

All the ones with a margin of victory over 10% and 400 EV in my opinion. So 2008 would be out on both counts and 1988 out on the count of a 53-45% popular vote margin. This also eliminates Bill Clinton too. For close calls like 1980 where Reagan held a solid electoral victory but was slightly under the required 10% fresh hold, I just give it to Reagan anyway since it's so close and due to the impact of his win.  If you ask me, the most solid landslide has to be 1936 due to Roosevelts massive margins in states that shouldn't be voting Democrat at all and crushing the republican in all but Vermont, Kansas, and Maine. The second most impressive one has to be 1924. Although the electoral vote and popular vote was not as impressive the massive margins Coolidge received uniformalty in all states above the mason dixon line resulted in horrible loses for the democrat. Davis failed to get even 10% in many states. Other notable examples include 1972, 1984, 1920, 1904, and 1932 of course.
Logged



#BrownforEternalPresident

Here - http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=18844.1250
2020 Democratic Primary - Sherrod Brown, Tulsi Gabbard, Steve Bullock
TL: Strong as a Bull Moose! - A Alternate 1912 Election and Beyond
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=270726.0
Arbitrage1980
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 466
View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2017, 05:34:09 pm »
Ignore

All the ones with a margin of victory over 10% and 400 EV in my opinion. So 2008 would be out on both counts and 1988 out on the count of a 53-45% popular vote margin. This also eliminates Bill Clinton too. For close calls like 1980 where Reagan held a solid electoral victory but was slightly under the required 10% fresh hold, I just give it to Reagan anyway since it's so close and due to the impact of his win.  If you ask me, the most solid landslide has to be 1936 due to Roosevelts massive margins in states that shouldn't be voting Democrat at all and crushing the republican in all but Vermont, Kansas, and Maine. The second most impressive one has to be 1924. Although the electoral vote and popular vote was not as impressive the massive margins Coolidge received uniformalty in all states above the mason dixon line resulted in horrible loses for the democrat. Davis failed to get even 10% in many states. Other notable examples include 1972, 1984, 1920, 1904, and 1932 of course.

I do think 1936 was the greatest landslide since James Monroe's undisputed victory in 1820. FDR won the national popular vote by 24.3%, 523 electoral votes out of 531, got 80%+ in 7 states and 50%+ in all but Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. It was a comprehensive butt kicking.

I disagree on 1924. Coolidge's victory was less impressive than Harding 1920, FDR 1936, Nixon 1972. You also have to take into account Progressive candidate Robert LaFollette getting 16.6% of the popular vote.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12606
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2017, 07:54:47 pm »
Ignore

My personal definition of a landslide is where the second place candidate in a presidential election wins less than 100 EVs, or where the winner of a lower level election gets at least 60% of the vote.  So by that measure, the following presidential elections would be landslides:

1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1952
1956
1964
1972
1980
1984

And my second tier, what I would call "near-landslides":
1920
1924
1988
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of
her citizens cannot cure.
NO to theocracy, NO to Roy Moore.
super6646
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2017, 08:42:46 pm »
Ignore

1920-1944 , 1952-1956 , 1964, 1972, 1980-1988
Logged
Great Society
progressive85
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 795
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2017, 12:16:35 pm »
Ignore

I think a landslide is when someone wins close to or over 60% of the vote.  1920, 1928, 1932, 1956, 1964, 1972, and 1984.  Nothing after 1984 is a landslide - which means the United States has gone 33 years without it.

A lot of these landslides too didn't have any coattails - Democrats kept control of Congress in 1956, 1972, and 1984.

1932 is the ultimate landslide because there was such a swing to Democrats that it had lasting effects.  With FDR at top of the ticket, the Democrats picked up 12 Senate seats and 97 House seats.

Presidential elections aren't really landslides though.  Landslides are found in Senate, House, and Governor where the candidate wins 70%.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2527
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 29, 2017, 10:22:42 am »
Ignore

1920-28, 1932-36, 1952-56, 1964, 1972, 1984
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines