"Lock" on the Presidency???

[Ryan]

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.

[Ryan]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ryan]

Any involving FDR...

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.

[Ryan]

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.

[Ryan]

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".

[Ryan]

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??

[Ryan]

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.

[Ryan]

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