Unusual Presidential Elections

[NorthernDog]

I have heard a lot of references to Nixon's 1972 landslide victory over George McGovern.  It was one of the most lop-sided in history. McGovern's campaign is most famous for favoring a quick end to the VietNam War.  However, there must be other factors that resulted in a 49-state electoral college blow-out.  Why did Nixon, only modestly popular, win so easily?  And why was Massachusetts favoring McGovern by a comfortable margin at the same time?

[NorthernDog]

But yes, 1980 especially was somewhat of an aberration in Massachusetts, as it was only the 7th most Democratic state in the nation that year, after usually being one of the 2 most Democratic along with Rhode Island for most of the last 40 years.

Nice analysis NYM.  I've heard a theory that states who have a candidate rejected in the primaries are not enthusiastic for the primary winner.  In '80 Ted Kennedy challenged Carter in the primaries and did a lot of harm to his support in MA.  I think you can see the same phenomenon in AZ in '00, where McCain challenged Bush, or in KS in '88 where Dole challenged Bush, or CA for Ford in '76, when Reagan lost the nomination.  There's ceratinly exception to this-Bill Bradley lost to Gore in '00 but NJ went solidly for Gore-but the theory may explain less than expected vote margins in many cases.

[NorthernDog]

Here's another odd election:
1968 Nixon/Humphrey/Wallace
A lot of people (who should know better) where I live say that Humphrey lost by than than 1%. They also state that if the campaign had lasted 5 more days Humphrey would have won.   These comments cause two question in my mind:
1. Why do so many people ignore the electoral vote when referring to elections? In '68 is was as follows:Nixon 301, Humphrey 191, Wallace 46.
2.Does it make any sense at all to say "If the campaign had last longer HHH would have won"?
Was Johnson trying to end the VietNam war?

[NorthernDog]

It might serve the Dems better if, rather than going to the safe haven of Boston, they went to a midwestern or southern city and tried to show average voter it's still safe to vote Dem, rather than having a love-in in Boston.

I think Boston was picked becasue of Kennedy's intense lobbying.  I had heard the Clintons wanted NYC and behind the scenes it got ugly.  One of the 2 parties should pick the Midwest or West for once-Minneapolis, St Louis, even Denver would be a nice change.

[NorthernDog]

For me a bizzare election would be 1916.  Charles Hughes came withing about 2000 votes of winning California and the entire election.  

I vaguley remember hearing that a freak storm in the  Republican area of nothern CA kept the vote totals down.  I wonder what would happen if an earthquake disrupted an election?  There's no provision to re-schedule a general election!

[NorthernDog]

What really stands out about his presidency is his leadership in foreign affairs.  He went far beyond where Roosevelt had contemplated in confronting the Soviet Union and keeping the US engaged in world affairs after the war.

Yes, this was Truman's strong point, but I think his handling of the Korean War (police action) undermined his support.  His approval rating dropped to about 30% by 1952.  I think the country was tired of Democrat Presidents by then too.