Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For much of the 20th century, it was possible for presidential candidates to win in blowout margins. Beginning in the 1990's, however, our politics became much more polarized, and by the time the 2000 election rolled around, only about 10% of the electoral was truly persuadable by either political party. Nowadays, that figure is at most 5%.
In 1996 (as in 1984), we were in an era of peace and prosperity, yet Bill Clinton's margin of victory over Bob Dole (379 EVs to 159 EVs) was far smaller than was Ronald Reagan's victory over Walter Mondale (525 EVs to 13 EVs). And in the modern political era, it would be highly unlikely for a presidential nominee to even perform as poorly as Dole did in 1996. While anything is possible, we should expect relatively close elections most of the time. IMO, the worst-case scenario for any party (in the modern era) is likely to be a repeat of the 2008 result of 365 EVs for Barack Obama to 173 EVs for John McCain. In order to arrive at such a lopsided result (by 21st Century standards), the opposition party had two huge things breaking their way: (1) an incumbent president whose popularity was in the toilet and (2) a stock market crash that occurred two months prior to Election Day.
Do you think McCain would have win without event (2) in bold? If not, how much closer do you think the election would have been?
Do you think McCain would have win without event (2) in bold? If not, how much closer do you think the election would have been?
That's a very interesting question. My best guess is that Obama would have still won, but by a much smaller margin, and for the following reasons:
*Bush's horrendous approval rating would have been a huge burden for any Republican in 2008.
*Obama was a history making candidate, a very talented campaigner, and someone who was idolized by African-Americans, liberal activists, and the mainstream media. (An even though I consider Obama to be a poor president, there is no denying his immense political skills.) Running against Obama would have been an additional burden for the GOP.
*It's historically very difficult for one political party to win three presidential elections in a row, even if the retiring president is popular, as Republicans found out in 1960 and Democrats learned in 2000 and 2016. (Given this fact, its absolutely remarkable that Michael Dukakis did so terribly in 1988. For those of you who don't know, he actually had a 17-point lead over Bush coming out of that year's Democratic Convention, which he managed to blow. IMO, his campaign was on par with Hillary's for being the worst-ever in the past 40 years.)
every Election is different and some of you seem to forget why Reagan won in 1980 !
#1: The Iranian Hostage situation and Carter couldn't fix that situation (Reagan negotiated with terrorists to free them as we saw later in the Iran/ Contra scandal and let Ollie North take the blame for that !)
#2: The economy was in a free fall with Gas prices at a all time high , in addition to Inflation at double digits ! Although savers were raking it in with savings accounts paying 18% Interest at the time.
Also note that the worst stock market crash in modern history occurred under Reagan and the record highs were under Clinton and now under President Obama the Dow is approaching 20,000 points !
#3: Trump didn't win in a "landslide" and the popular vote which he lost by nearly 3 million votes to Hillary doesn't give him a mandate.
That's a very interesting question. My best guess is that Obama would have still won, but by a much smaller margin, and for the following reasons:
*Bush's horrendous approval rating would have been a huge burden for any Republican in 2008.
*Obama was a history making candidate, a very talented campaigner, and someone who was idolized by African-Americans, liberal activists, and the mainstream media. (An even though I consider Obama to be a poor president, there is no denying his immense political skills.) Running against Obama would have been an additional burden for the GOP.
*It's historically very difficult for one political party to win three presidential elections in a row, even if the retiring president is popular, as Republicans found out in 1960 and Democrats learned in 2000 and 2016. (Given this fact, its absolutely remarkable that Michael Dukakis did so terribly in 1988. For those of you who don't know, he actually had a 17-point lead over Bush coming out of that year's Democratic Convention, which he managed to blow. IMO, his campaign was on par with Hillary's for being the worst-ever in the past 40 years.)
Why don't we put this into perspective..? What killed Dukakis was the racist TV ad run by daddy Bush about Willie Horton being on a "furlough" and committing a crime.
White America's fear of blacks and minorities is what got Trump elected this time around.
His racist / Breitbart campaign is what got him elected and winning the Electoral College since he didn't win the overall vote.
That being said, Hillary should have not lost the Rust Belt states and Trump promised Wisconsin , Michigan ,Ohio & PA a economic "manufacturing" rose garden that will never come to pass.
Why don't we put this into perspective..? What killed Dukakis was the racist TV ad run by daddy Bush about Willie Horton being on a "furlough" and committing a crime.
White America's fear of blacks and minorities is what got Trump elected this time around.
His racist / Breitbart campaign is what got him elected and winning the Electoral College since he didn't win the overall vote.
That being said, Hillary should have not lost the Rust Belt states and Trump promised Wisconsin , Michigan ,Ohio & PA a economic "manufacturing" rose garden that will never come to pass.
Nonsense.
Dukakis lost because of the Tank Advert. They created it after Dukakis tried to portray a strong pro-military image by being filmed riding in a tank. It backfired spectacularly.
If Trump does what he says and brings jobs back,closes down the border,incomes skyrocket etc will he eclipse Reagan's landslide win in 1984?
Also this is ASSUMING Trump wins in 2020.
I personally think he will. As of now the democrats are shattered into pieces,the leading candidate for the DNC is a Muslim with some comments he's made that will haunt the democrats. They have NO ONE that is obviously popular according to a poll I just saw so yeah I think he takes at least takes 47 states with a lot of hard work to take California,New York and Illinois.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
