Election Results - Historical Review
Time to step back and take a look at how this election looks against the others of the past 70 years or so (roughly a lifetime). Bush won by 3%. Kerry lost because he didn't get enough votes. Beyond that, it's just speculation. As a win, 3% isn't all that great. The landslides of my lifetime were 1964, when Johnson beat Goldwater by 23 percentage points, and 1972, when Nixon beat McGovern by 23 percentage points (Roosevelt was before my time). Now that's when the losing side presented an inadequate opponent. Kerry was entirely adequate as a candidate; he just didn't get enough votes. And while I'm at it, the youth vote was terrific--just think what the margin would be without it. And gay marriage--more about that later--is not to blame. Republicans are perceived as more "hawkish" and Democrats as more "dove-ish," and I believe this pulled many wavering Republican votes toward Bush, despite strong disapproval of his fiscal recklessness and his performance as commander-in-chief of the Iraq war.
The following table provides figures from wikipedia.org on election results. As we know all too well, there are many different ways to interpret figures. But aside from the landslides described in the preceding paragraph, the table shows that Bush's 2004 victory was the weakest result for an incumbent in the 72 years shown, and Bush's 2000 victory is the only win with a negative percent of the popular vote. An interesting factor that the table format shows is the influence of a strong third party candidate (I didn't show third-party candidates with less than 3% of the vote).
Note that both Eisenhower and Reagan had double digit wins for both terms. Note that H.W. Bush and both Clinton terms were won by twice the lead that W. claimed over Kerry.
The following table provides figures from wikipedia.org on election results. As we know all too well, there are many different ways to interpret figures. But aside from the landslides described in the preceding paragraph, the table shows that Bush's 2004 victory was the weakest result for an incumbent in the 72 years shown, and Bush's 2000 victory is the only win with a negative percent of the popular vote. An interesting factor that the table format shows is the influence of a strong third party candidate (I didn't show third-party candidates with less than 3% of the vote).
Note that both Eisenhower and Reagan had double digit wins for both terms. Note that H.W. Bush and both Clinton terms were won by twice the lead that W. claimed over Kerry.
Election year |
Percentage of popular vote (winner : loser) |
Margin of difference (percentage points) | Candidates (winner / loser) | Third party influence (percentage points) |
2004 | 51 : 48 | + 3 | Bush/Kerry | |
2000 | 47.9 : 48.3 | - 0.4 | Bush/Gore | 3% Nader |
1996 | 49 : 41 | + 8 | Clinton/Dole | 8% Perot |
1992 | 43 : 37 | + 6 | Clinton/Bush | 19% Perot |
1988 | 53 : 46 | + 7 | Bush/Dukakis | |
1984 | 59 : 41 | + 18 | Reagan/Mondale | |
1980 | 51 :41 | + 10 | Reagan/Carter | 7% Anderson |
1976 | 50 : 48 | + 2 | Carter/Ford | |
1972 | 61 : 38 | + 23 | Nixon/McGovern | |
1968 | 43.2 : 42.6 | + 0.6 | Nixon/Humphrey | 13% Wallace |
1964 | 61 : 38 | + 23 | Johnson/Goldwater | |
1960 | 49.7 : 49.6 | + 0.1 | Kennedy/Nixon | |
1956 | 57 : 42 | + 15 | Eisenhower/Stevenson | |
1952 | 55 : 45 | + 10 | Eisenhower/Stevenson | |
1948 | 48 : 45 | + 3 | Truman/Dewey | |
1944 | 54 : 46 | + 8 | Roosevelt/Dewey | |
1940 | 55 : 45 | + 10 | Roosevelt/Wilke | |
1936 | 61 : 37 | + 24 | Roosevelt/Landon | |
1932 | 58 : 40 | + 18 | Roosevelt/Hoover |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home