Posted on 07/19/2024 12:08:29 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Yup 72 was a hum dinger vs McGovern.
Yeah, 68 was no landslide, but boy, do libs like to pounce hard on such small, trivial things!
1968 presidential election results (map, state table, and results by congressional district)
As far as the popular vote, some who are clueless might simplistically combine the Humphrey and Wallace votes (since Wallace was a nominal Democrat) and conclude that Nixon would have lost big in a 2-way race. The reality is that Wallace took significantly more votes from Nixon than from Humphrey, as is well-documented in this good writeup of the 1968 election campaign (by two Democrat authors):
1968 had two Democrats running, split the vote.
LBJ dropped out in MARCH.
It’s nearly August and 68 was an absolute $#1t$#0w for democrats and helped In part set up the landslide that happened in 1972
And 1964. So we had landslides in 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988. Not in 1968 or 1976. So 5 out of 7 elections in that era were landslides.
Nixon’s 520 electoral vote win over McGovern in the 1972 prez race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election
Reagan’s win 489 electoral votes in 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidential_election
Reagan’s 525 electoral vote win in 1984.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election
Bush’s 426 electoral vote win in 1988.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_United_States_presidential_election
What’s the minimum number of votes needed to be defined as a landslide?
Cripes... all of a sudden the popular vote means something ?
did they forget wallace was in the race ? and got 13%+ plus 46 electoral votes.
If Wallace wasn’t in the race who gets his popular and electoral votes ?
(Hint...Nixon got ‘em all in 72 and Goldwater got most of ‘em in 64)
No one can rationally discuss the 1968 race without acknowledging the candidacy of Governor Wallace. Both Nixon and Humphrey designed campaigns to attract Wallace voters.
Wallace was also central to the 1972 campaign - disturbing both major political parties - until “a lone gunman” intervened.
Not a landslide but not far off. Nixon doubled up Humphrey in EVs, won 32 states to 13 plus DC for Humphrey. Wallace won 5 and if those presumably would have gone to Humphrey then it would have been pretty close, but objectively, it was a resounding victory by Nixon. Yahoo of course trying to downplay it to fit their narrative.
“No one can rationally discuss the 1968 race without acknowledging the candidacy of Governor Wallace. Both Nixon and Humphrey designed campaigns to attract Wallace voters.
Wallace was also central to the 1972 campaign - disturbing both major political parties - until “a lone gunman” intervened.”
Wallace was indeed a huge factor in 1968 despite the electoral vote outcome, and would have been in 1972 as well.
In that book which I linked above the authors did a little speculating about the potential Wallace effect in 1972:
[Page 193:] “Suppose George Wallace, for all his youth, died or was disabled [prior to the 1972 election]....”
Rather prescient, as it turned out. The authors were in the process of making the point that even if George Wallace went away, the movement he was leading surely would NOT.
“1968 had two Democrats running, split the vote.”
George Wallace attracted both Southern Democrats (who would likely have otherwise voted for Humphrey) and Goldwater Republicans (who would likely have otherwise voted for Nixon). The net effect was ambiguous, but it is certain that Wallace’s votes cut into both Humphrey’s and Nixon’s votes.
I built a couple of objective, accurate, and Constitutionally-loyal ways of assessing "closeness” using the popular vote, while understanding that the Electoral College reigns supreme.
Nixon’s 1968 win wasn’t a landslide, but it wasn’t a squeaker. It was basically in the 25th percentile in terms of votes in the states that were a tipping point (more on that later). In terms of Electoral Vote winning %, the only elections closer than 1968 since WWII were both of Dubya’s and Carter. In contrast, Nixon’s 1972 win was the second-biggest landslide - FDR’s 1936 win takes the Oscar.
Further, Biden's win was hardly a mandate; it is amongst the six closest across the 39 Presidential elections we've had since the end of the Civil War. Biden's election was about as close as Kennedy's 1960 election (where there were rumors of fraud as well), and in close proximity to that of the tumultous 1876 Hayes election that brought about the Compromise of 1877, as well as the 1880 Garfield election which featured irregularities.
By contrast, Trump's 2016 win was less close than Biden's win* (For purposes of this post (and for the rest of my life), I have put an asterisk next to Biden's "election." ). Finally, all elections since 1980 have been more close than average except for Reagan's win in 1984 and, to a much lesser extent, Clinton's win in 1996.
How does this work? I chose to focus on the margin (i.e., difference between winner and first runner-up) in the state races that were closest through that from the "tipping-point state."
A tipping-point state is the state that pushes the candidate over the winning EC vote total WHEN all states are sorted from lowest to highest winning vote margin.
For example, in 2012, Obama secured 332 EVs over Romney's 206. This EV total is 23% over the 270 needed to win. That feels like a wide margin of victory.
But, that doesn't tell you how close was the election. What if, for example, Obama won those close state races by a margin of one vote? Therefore, if we sort Obama's state-level winning vote percentage margin (i.e., Obama's state-level vote share minus Romney's state-level vote share), from lowest to highest, we can get a better feel for the "closeness."
Here are the actual data:
| State | Obama winning margin (votes) | Obama winning margin (% diff from Romney) | Electoral Votes | Obama cumulative EVs with flipping |
| Florida | 74,309 | 0.88% | 29 | 303 |
| Ohio | 166,272 | 2.98% | 18 | 285 |
| Virginia | 149,298 | 3.87% | 13 | 272 |
| Colorado (tipping point state) | 137,858 | 5.37% | 9 | 263 |
We now see that Obama beat Romney in Florida by only 0.88% of the Florida votes, followed 2.98% of the votes in Ohio, and 3.87% of the votes in Virginia. Had Romney flipped those three states, Obama would still have 272 EVs and the win.
But, if Romney also flipped the "tipping-point state" of Colorado where the margin was 5.37%, Obama would have had 263 EVs and the Presidency would be Romney's (he'd have 275 EVs).
Across these four states, Obama's vote margin was 527,737 votes, which is 2.577% of those states' aggregate votes and 0.409% of the national vote total of 129,085,410.
Now, we are getting somewhere. Those percentages are lower than the 3.86% national vote difference, and much lower than the 23% of excess Electoral Votes that Obama got over the 270 needed to win. Perhaps more importantly, they reflect the Constitution and the Electoral College (e.g., we're not counting runs scored in the World Series but how close were the games).
I believe these two measures - the cumulative winning vote difference in close states through the tipping-point state relative to (1) those respective state vote totals and (2) national vote total - are more accurate, reflect how our Constitution work, AND can be compared across all elections, regardless of the number of citizens voting and EVs. Finally, they are based on facts, and not some 'journalist' cherry-picking a cutoff for including this or that state in his/her analysis.
I went to Wikipedia and pulled election vote data from 2020 to 1868 (I cut if off at this point, because from 1864 backwards, southern state non-participation and other issues make the analysis a little difficult) and sorted the state-level winning vote percentage difference between the winner and runner-up from lowest to highest, and summed the winning vote margins from the closest state up to and including the tipping-point state. I divided that aggregate margin by State-level total votes for the closest through tipping point states, and aggregate national vote totals. Both metrics have advantages - the pure State Closeness Metric (SCM) is agnostic toward other states outside of this analysis, while the closeness metric based on the national vote (NCM) is a general barometer of the close states relative to the entire race.
I also took the national popular vote difference between the winner and first runner up and the Electoral Vote margin (excess electoral votes divided by the amount needed to win, which varies across time) for comparison purposes.
Here are the data:
| Election & Winner | Popular Vote Margin % | NCM: Sum of Tipping Point Popular Margins to Total Popular Vote % | SCM: Sum of Tipping Point Popular Margins to Total Tipping Point Popular Vote % | EV Margin/Total Evs % |
| 2020 Biden* | 4.45% | 0.027% | 0.367% | 6.691% |
| 2016 Trump | −2.10% | 0.057% | 0.558% | 6.320% |
| 2012 Obama | 3.86% | 0.409% | 2.577% | 11.524% |
| 2008 Obama | 7.27% | 0.757% | 3.607% | 17.658% |
| 2004 Dubya | 2.46% | 0.110% | 1.706% | 2.974% |
| 2000 Dubya | −0.52% | 0.001% | 0.009% | 0.186% |
| 1996 Clinton | 8.52% | 1.442% | 5.886% | 20.260% |
| 1992 Clinton | 5.56% | 0.588% | 2.864% | 18.587% |
| 1988 GHW Bush | 7.73% | 1.345% | 4.010% | 28.996% |
| 1984 Reagan | 18.22% | 6.419% | 12.230% | 47.398% |
| 1980 Reagan | 9.74% | 1.856% | 4.273% | 40.706% |
| 1976 Carter | 2.06% | 0.057% | 0.746% | 5.019% |
| 1972 Nixon | 23.15% | 8.763% | 16.102% | 46.468% |
| 1968 Nixon | 0.70% | 0.235% | 1.992% | 5.762% |
| 1964 Johnson | 22.58% | 6.587% | 15.777% | 40.149% |
| 1960 Kennedy | 0.16% | 0.028% | 0.276% | 6.134% |
| 1956 Eisenhower | 15.40% | 4.233% | 10.857% | 35.970% |
| 1952 Eisenhower | 10.85% | 3.071% | 7.787% | 33.145% |
| 1948 Truman | 4.48% | 0.051% | 0.359% | 6.968% |
| 1944 FDR | 7.49% | 1.501% | 3.363% | 31.262% |
| 1940 FDR | 9.95% | 2.296% | 4.282% | 34.463% |
| 1936 FDR | 24.25% | 10.676% | 16.801% | 48.399% |
| 1932 FDR | 17.76% | 5.041% | 9.653% | 38.795% |
| 1928 Hoover | 17.42% | 2.860% | 8.070% | 33.522% |
| 1924 Coolidge | 25.22% | 2.357% | 9.601% | 21.846% |
| 1920 Harding | 26.17% | 4.989% | 16.064% | 21.846% |
| 1916 Wilson | 3.12% | 0.151% | 0.352% | 2.072% |
| 1912 Wilson | 14.44% | 2.772% | 6.755% | 31.827% |
| 1908 Taft | 8.53% | 1.007% | 4.227% | 16.356% |
| 1904 T. Roosevelt | 18.83% | 3.297% | 10.803% | 20.378% |
| 1900 McKinley | 6.12% | 1.698% | 6.273% | 15.213% |
| 1896 McKinley | 4.31% | 0.509% | 2.844% | 10.515% |
| 1892 Grover Cleveland | 3.01% | 0.374% | 1.984% | 12.162% |
| 1888 B. Harrison | -0.83% | 0.147% | 0.901% | 7.980% |
| 1884 Grover Cleveland | 0.57% | 0.011% | 0.098% | 9.214% |
| 1880 Garfield | 0.11% | 0.307% | 1.754% | 7.859% |
| 1876 Hayes | -3.00% | 0.011% | 0.487% | 0.000% |
| 1872 Grant | 11.80% | 2.167% | 5.952% | 30.966% |
| 1868 Grant | 5.32% | 1.015% | 3.776% | 22.449% |
| Average | 9.40% | 2.031% | 5.283% | 20.462% |
| Median | 7.49% | 1.015% | 3.776% | 18.587% |
| Avg 1980-2020 | 7.53% | 1.183% | 3.462% | 18.300% |
| Median 1980-2020 | 7.27% | 0.588% | 2.864% | 17.658% |
Here is the data sorted by NCM and SCM:
| Election & Winner | NCM: sorted lowest to highest | Election & Winner | SCM: sorted lowest to highest | |
| 2000 Dubya | 0.001% | 2000 Dubya | 0.009% | |
| 1876 Hayes | 0.011% | 1884 Grover Cleveland | 0.098% | |
| 1884 Grover Cleveland | 0.011% | 1960 Kennedy | 0.276% | |
| 2020 Biden* | 0.027% | 1916 Wilson | 0.352% | |
| 1960 Kennedy | 0.028% | 1948 Truman | 0.359% | |
| 1948 Truman | 0.051% | 2020 Biden* | 0.367% | |
| 1976 Carter | 0.057% | 1876 Hayes | 0.487% | |
| 2016 Trump | 0.057% | 2016 Trump | 0.558% | |
| 2004 Dubya | 0.110% | 1976 Carter | 0.746% | |
| 1888 B. Harrison | 0.147% | 1888 B. Harrison | 0.901% | |
| 1916 Wilson | 0.151% | 2004 Dubya | 1.706% | |
| 1968 Nixon | 0.235% | 1880 Garfield | 1.754% | |
| 1880 Garfield | 0.307% | 1892 Grover Cleveland | 1.984% | |
| 1892 Grover Cleveland | 0.374% | 1968 Nixon | 1.992% | |
| 2012 Obama | 0.409% | 2012 Obama | 2.577% | |
| 1896 McKinley | 0.509% | 1896 McKinley | 2.844% | |
| 1992 Clinton | 0.588% | 1992 Clinton | 2.864% | |
| 2008 Obama | 0.757% | 1944 FDR | 3.363% | |
| 1908 Taft | 1.007% | 2008 Obama | 3.607% | |
| 1868 Grant | 1.015% | 1868 Grant | 3.776% | |
| 1988 GHW Bush | 1.345% | 1988 GHW Bush | 4.010% | |
| 1996 Clinton | 1.442% | 1908 Taft | 4.227% | |
| 1944 FDR | 1.501% | 1980 Reagan | 4.273% | |
| 1900 McKinley | 1.698% | 1940 FDR | 4.282% | |
| 1980 Reagan | 1.856% | 1996 Clinton | 5.886% | |
| 1872 Grant | 2.167% | 1872 Grant | 5.952% | |
| 1940 FDR | 2.296% | 1900 McKinley | 6.273% | |
| 1924 Coolidge | 2.357% | 1912 Wilson | 6.755% | |
| 1912 Wilson | 2.772% | 1952 Eisenhower | 7.787% | |
| 1928 Hoover | 2.860% | 1928 Hoover | 8.070% | |
| 1952 Eisenhower | 3.071% | 1924 Coolidge | 9.601% | |
| 1904 T. Roosevelt | 3.297% | 1932 FDR | 9.653% | |
| 1956 Eisenhower | 4.233% | 1904 T. Roosevelt | 10.803% | |
| 1920 Harding | 4.989% | 1956 Eisenhower | 10.857% | |
| 1932 FDR | 5.041% | 1984 Reagan | 12.230% | |
| 1984 Reagan | 6.419% | 1964 Johnson | 15.777% | |
| 1964 Johnson | 6.587% | 1920 Harding | 16.064% | |
| 1972 Nixon | 8.763% | 1972 Nixon | 16.102% | |
| 1936 FDR | 10.676% | 1936 FDR | 16.801% | |
| Average | 2.031% | Average | 5.283% | |
| Median | 1.015% | Median | 3.776% | |
| Avg 1980-2020 | 1.183% | Avg 1980-2020 | 3.462% | |
| Median 1980-2020 | 0.588% | Median 1980-2020 | 2.864% |
I know there is a LOT to unpack here, so I'll be brief:
1. As noted earlier, Biden's election* is far from a mandate: it is the fourth tightest using the SCM and sixth tightest using the LCM. The only contest tighter than Biden's since 1980 was Dubya's 2000 election.
2. While Trump's 2016 election was also tight, historically it is line with Truman in 1948 and Carter in 1976 the SCM. On a NCM basis, Trump's election is comparable in closeness to Biden's contest* but is not as close.
3. At the other end of the scale, Nixon's 1972 election is the second-widest blowout using both metrics, even bigger than Reagan's 1984 blowout.
4. About two-thirds (Seven out of eleven) of the elections from 1980-2020 are in the closet half of all elections, with only 1988, 1996, 1980 and 1984 landing in the widest half.
5. Obama and Wilson are the only re-elected presidents in this analysis where their re-election was closer than the initial election. FDR's first re-election was a blowout, but this third and fourth re-elections were sequentially closer.
Only 301 EV’s for Nixon - 32 fewer and there’s a wrinkle:
Closest Nixon states: 12 MO (1.13%),17 NJ (2.13%), 26 OH (2.28%), 3 AK (2.64%), 26 IL (2.92%).
I’ve heard Wallace would have cut his best deal and endorsed one or the other.
Why do they mention the popular vote over and over when that doesn’t even count?
For the same reason they keep calling America a Democracy.
They’re stupid.
Ok, also, they think if enough people agree, it’d be easier to effect a change to the Constitution.
Well, it used to be considered a landslide won by least ten points between the two candidates in a two-person race or with multiple candidates with a third but significant party candidate like in 1856, 1912 or 1924. Today the MSM regards any race won by a Democrat with at least three points as a landslide giving them a “mandate” to run the country.
The popular vote wasn’t a huge win, but electoral college it was pretty big. George Wallace won six states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.