Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => U.S. Presidential Election Results => Topic started by: A18 on December 12, 2004, 11:06:36 PM



Title: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: A18 on December 12, 2004, 11:06:36 PM
I say No. Johnson lost 6 states, several by sizeable margins, and didn't get 500 EVs.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: Cashcow on December 12, 2004, 11:19:15 PM
I know Republicans hate the popular vote, but 61.05% is more than both Reagan and Nixon could ever get.

Of course it was a landslide.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: A18 on December 12, 2004, 11:24:25 PM
Well, 1936 was also more than both Reagan and Nixon could ever get, and I consider that a landslide.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: Bugs on December 13, 2004, 06:06:09 AM
61%-39% popular vote and 486-52 EV is a landslide.  I say yes it was.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: minionofmidas on December 13, 2004, 06:09:52 AM
Two ways to answer the question:
a) Yes, it was.
b) No, landslides do not exist.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: A18 on December 13, 2004, 07:07:38 AM
He didn't get 500 EVs.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: minionofmidas on December 13, 2004, 07:13:12 AM
Neither did George Washington.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: A18 on December 13, 2004, 07:15:48 AM
George Washington got 500/538. Not that you can have a landslide when it's just state legislatures picking electors.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on December 13, 2004, 09:24:27 AM
Sorry Phil, there weren't that many Presidential electors in the 18th century!


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: Lunar on December 13, 2004, 09:26:18 AM
I don't see why something has to be 500 to classify as a "landslide."


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: A18 on December 13, 2004, 09:27:14 AM
Sorry Phil, there weren't that many Presidential electors in the 18th century!

I'm saying he got the fraction 500/538 of the electors.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: A18 on December 13, 2004, 09:35:36 AM
I don't see why something has to be 500 to classify as a "landslide."

It doesn't, but I think of a landslide as one of those true, rare electoral blowouts that just obliterates the opponent.

IMO, there are only three of those in U.S. history: 1936, 1972, and 1984.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: qwerty on December 13, 2004, 09:55:55 AM
Yes, it was a very impressive landslide.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: J-Mann on December 13, 2004, 12:05:46 PM
Of course it was a landslide.  Reagan lost six states and didn't win 500 electoral votes in 1980 (nor did he get over 60% of the popular vote), but his victory over Carter was most certainly a landslide.  There isn't a certain electoral count that you have to reach to make it a landslide.  Clinton won in landslides both times, and he didn't even get over 50%.  A landslide is more dependent on how the electorate responds to a candidate.

1964 was a landslide.  Anyone who claims it wasn't is either A) being a partisan dick, or B) blind.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: J-Mann on December 13, 2004, 12:08:20 PM
Sorry Phil, there weren't that many Presidential electors in the 18th century!

I'm saying he got the fraction 500/538 of the electors.

I don't think you understand the balloting system.  Washington got 100% of the electoral votes that he possibly could have, considering that New York/Vermont and part of Virginia didn't vote.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on December 13, 2004, 12:20:38 PM
I go mostly by PV for determining landslides, you can't say 1912 was a landslide for example even though Wilson had a massive electoral victory, similarly I do consider 1920 a landslide even though Harding lost many states. Still I'd put 450 as the min for landslide margin, so 1964 classifies electorally, and PV wise it most certainly was.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: Democratic Hawk on December 13, 2004, 12:55:24 PM
I know Republicans hate the popular vote, but 61.05% is more than both Reagan and Nixon could ever get.

Of course it was a landslide.

Here, here!

Dave


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: Redefeatbush04 on December 13, 2004, 04:41:53 PM
I say No. Johnson lost 6 states, several by sizeable margins, and didn't get 500 EVs.

YOU SAY THAT 1964 WAS NOT A LANDSLIDE

Arizona, went Republican from every presidential election from 1948-1996.

I think this is correct. It was, afterall, one of the few GOP strongholds to withstand the Johnson landslide.

YOU SAY THAT 1964 WAS A LANDSLIDE


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: Hitchabrut on December 13, 2004, 06:48:47 PM
Yes.

A fact: According to the Gallup Archive, early in the campaign, Johnson led 77%-18%


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: A18 on December 13, 2004, 07:21:50 PM
I say No. Johnson lost 6 states, several by sizeable margins, and didn't get 500 EVs.

YOU SAY THAT 1964 WAS NOT A LANDSLIDE

Arizona, went Republican from every presidential election from 1948-1996.

I think this is correct. It was, afterall, one of the few GOP strongholds to withstand the Johnson landslide.

YOU SAY THAT 1964 WAS A LANDSLIDE

I've probably also referred to 1988 as a landslide at times. Lately I've been using the term a lot less.

I have to disagree that 1980, 1992, and 1996 were landslides. I think you need about, exactly, or over 60% of the vote to have a true landslide. Clinton didn't even get 50% of the vote, Reagan got only 51%.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: J-Mann on December 13, 2004, 07:46:36 PM
I say No. Johnson lost 6 states, several by sizeable margins, and didn't get 500 EVs.

YOU SAY THAT 1964 WAS NOT A LANDSLIDE

Arizona, went Republican from every presidential election from 1948-1996.

I think this is correct. It was, afterall, one of the few GOP strongholds to withstand the Johnson landslide.

YOU SAY THAT 1964 WAS A LANDSLIDE

LOL - good eye, Red.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: A18 on December 13, 2004, 08:30:51 PM
Yes.

A fact: According to the Gallup Archive, early in the campaign, Johnson led 77%-18%

Didn't Bush lead 65 to 35 before the candidate was known?


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: Trilobyte on December 13, 2004, 08:40:37 PM
Yes.

A fact: According to the Gallup Archive, early in the campaign, Johnson led 77%-18%

Didn't Bush lead 65 to 35 before the candidate was known?

Johnson led 77%-18% in June, Bush was behind a couple points in June I think.


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: A18 on December 13, 2004, 08:46:46 PM
The comparison between the two isn't important. I'm just wondering, now that we're talking early poll numbers, how well Bush was doing. Some polls have him demolishing Howard Dean.

Can you give a link to the Gallup Archive?


Title: Re: Was 1964 a landslide?
Post by: J-Mann on December 13, 2004, 08:48:14 PM
The comparison between the two isn't important. I'm just wondering, now that we're talking early poll numbers, how well Bush was doing. Some polls have him demolishing Howard Dean.

Can you give a link to the Gallup Archive?

Check out www.pollingreport.com .  They should have archives of Gallup and several other polls as well.