Nixon vs. Reagan landslide

[CJK]

Blue is a state where Reagan did better than Nixon, Red is a state where Nixon did better than Reagan. Light shade means 0-5 points better, medium shade represents 5-10 points better, dark shade represents 10 points better or more.

[sg0508]

Nixon was actually weak in the west, especially on the west coast.  Reagan was weakest in the northeast and the midwest.

It was a very comparable landslide except that the south was more for Nixon.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nixon's worst Southern state was Kentucky, where he got 63% of the vote.  Reagan's best Southern state was Florida, where he got 65% of the vote.  No candidate of either Party will get Nixon's numbers in the South for a very long time.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Nixon's landslide is much more impressive than Reagan's for a few reasons:

1. Counties lost - Nixon lost only 131 counties.
2. Close states - Nixon beat McGovern in 49 states by more than 5%.
3. New York - Nixon winning 59% of the vote?!?

But I think in the end, look at both Reagan's and Nixon's opponents. Mondale never became a joke like McGovern.

[CJK]

Nixon's worst Southern state was Kentucky, where he got 63% of the vote.  Reagan's best Southern state was Florida, where he got 65% of the vote.  No candidate of either Party will get Nixon's numbers in the South for a very long time.

Was Nixon's strength in the South due to even stronger support among Southern whites or did he get a large share of the black vote?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Was Nixon's strength in the South due to even stronger support among Southern whites or did he get a large share of the black vote?

It has to be both, given the numbers he got.  70% in SC, 75% in GA, 72% in FL, 72% in AL, and 78% in MS all indicate extremely high levels of white support, while at the same time needing to get a large amount of black support.  Nixon won several black belt counties, while getting 33% in Macon, AL (nobody has gotten 20% since then), winning Orleans Parish, etc.  Nixon probably represents the acme for post-LBJ Republicans among black voters.

[Mr.Phips]

I remember reading that McGovern only beat Nixon 58%-42% among Democrats. 

[Mechaman]

I remember reading that McGovern only beat Nixon 58%-42% among Democrats. 

Holy sh*t, that's pretty bad.

[KuntaKinte]

What's the reason with Alaska and Hawaii? The rest does make sense to me.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Reagan's win was better than Nixon's, but McGovern's loss was far worse than Mondale's.

[Nym90]

Nixon probably did better with blacks than Reagan did, but black turnout was far higher in 1984 than in 1972. Just look at the total votes cast in the black belt counties and this will become obvious.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nixon probably did better with blacks than Reagan did, but black turnout was far higher in 1984 than in 1972. Just look at the total votes cast in the black belt counties and this will become obvious.

I should point out, regarding turnout, that Nixon received more raw votes in Macon, AL than any other Republican has since then; likewise in several other black belt counties.

[Nym90]

Nixon probably did better with blacks than Reagan did, but black turnout was far higher in 1984 than in 1972. Just look at the total votes cast in the black belt counties and this will become obvious.

I should point out, regarding turnout, that Nixon received more raw votes in Macon, AL than any other Republican has since then; likewise in several other black belt counties.

True, the black vote was more Republican then (remember that as recently as 15 years before, most blacks who could vote voted Republican, or were at least swing voters). I was just pointing out that the percentages were deceiving since although blacks could legally vote in 1972, many still hadn't gotten registered yet.

[Nym90]

Also, some of the black belt counties may have been whiter at that time than they are now (Lewis or Al would probably know for sure).

[sg0508]

Reagan's weaknesses with minorities hurt him in 84.  In the northeast, he was tight in a few states, including PA where he won only 53%.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Reagan's landslide was quite mediocre compared with the others. He didn't reach the 20%-line.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Reagan's landslide was quite mediocre compared with the others. He didn't reach the 20%-line.

But Reagan got more electoral votes, and came closer than Nixon did to winning fifty states.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Reagan's landslide was quite mediocre compared with the others. He didn't reach the 20%-line.

But Reagan got more electoral votes, and came closer than Nixon did to winning fifty states.

He was just lucky.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Reagan's landslide was quite mediocre compared with the others. He didn't reach the 20%-line.

But Reagan got more electoral votes, and came closer than Nixon did to winning fifty states.

He was just lucky.

I disagree. Reagan was pretty much bound to win no matter who the Democratic nominee was. He already won in a landslide in 1980, and was very popular. Nixon won solidly in 1972, but in that case it was partially due to his opponent, and I doubt that most of the other Democrats would have lost so badly.

[minionofmidas]

Also, some of the black belt counties may have been whiter at that time than they are now (Lewis or Al would probably know for sure).

Unlikely. 1972 is at the tail end of the Great Migration, so they would have been getting Whiter at a much lower rate since than before, but that's about it. Southern Urban and suburban (that were suburban even then) counties would have been much whiter than today, of course.

[hcallega]

Also, some of the black belt counties may have been whiter at that time than they are now (Lewis or Al would probably know for sure).

Unlikely. 1972 is at the tail end of the Great Migration, so they would have been getting Whiter at a much lower rate since than before, but that's about it. Southern Urban and suburban (that were suburban even then) counties would have been much whiter than today, of course.

I agree that Muskie, Wallace or Humphrey would have all done better, but Nixon was probably bound to win.

[CJK]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, and Harding wasn't lucky when ran against an extremely unpopular administration, Johnson wasn't lucky when he rode off JFK sympathy and faced an extremist, and Nixon wasn't lucky to get an opponent who had to withdraw his VP and was so far to the left he was bound to lose.

Just lucky? What a farce.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Reagan's landslide was quite mediocre compared with the others. He didn't reach the 20%-line.

But Reagan got more electoral votes, and came closer than Nixon did to winning fifty states.

He was just lucky.

I disagree. Reagan was pretty much bound to win no matter who the Democratic nominee was. He already won in a landslide in 1980, and was very popular. Nixon won solidly in 1972, but in that case it was partially due to his opponent, and I doubt that most of the other Democrats would have lost so badly.

Sure that McGovern played a big role in Nixon's win. I said Reagan was lucky in a structural sense : When winning far worse than Nixon, he came close to win 50/50 states.

And BTW, 1980 was not a landslide : he didn't even reach a 10% margin.

[Mechaman]

Reagan's landslide was quite mediocre compared with the others. He didn't reach the 20%-line.

But Reagan got more electoral votes, and came closer than Nixon did to winning fifty states.

He was just lucky.

I disagree. Reagan was pretty much bound to win no matter who the Democratic nominee was. He already won in a landslide in 1980, and was very popular. Nixon won solidly in 1972, but in that case it was partially due to his opponent, and I doubt that most of the other Democrats would have lost so badly.

Also, while LBJ and Nixon faced extremists, Reagan faced someone who while not moderate was about 10 miles from "extremist". Hell, some could argue that Mondale was less liberal than Reagan was conservative.
His landslide is more akin to the ole Harding or FDR type landslides that were more a reaction against the failures of the opposition party than any one politician.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Reagan's landslide was quite mediocre compared with the others. He didn't reach the 20%-line.

But Reagan got more electoral votes, and came closer than Nixon did to winning fifty states.

He was just lucky.

I disagree. Reagan was pretty much bound to win no matter who the Democratic nominee was. He already won in a landslide in 1980, and was very popular. Nixon won solidly in 1972, but in that case it was partially due to his opponent, and I doubt that most of the other Democrats would have lost so badly.

Also, while LBJ and Nixon faced extremists, Reagan faced someone who while not moderate was about 10 miles from "extremist". Hell, some could argue that Mondale was less liberal than Reagan was conservative.

reagan was a bad ass