How would Western Europe have voted in U.S. Presidential Elections?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:22:27 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  How would Western Europe have voted in U.S. Presidential Elections?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: How would Western Europe have voted in U.S. Presidential Elections?  (Read 3029 times)
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 21, 2010, 01:31:06 PM »
« edited: July 08, 2010, 05:43:13 PM by Rochambeau »

Since 1948:

My guesses would be:

1948:Truman
1952:Ike
1956:Ike
1960:Nixon
1964:LBJ
1968:Nixon
1972:Nixon
1976:Ford
1980:Carter
1984:Mondale
1988:Bush Sr.
1992:Bush Sr.
1996:Clinton
2000:Gore
2004:Kerry
2008:Obama
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2010, 02:19:14 PM »

Democrat for all
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2010, 02:19:23 PM »

No maps, Roch?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2010, 02:59:56 PM »


No. How about you make some if you're so into it?
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,030
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2010, 03:00:28 PM »

D every time, I hate to say.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2010, 03:01:19 PM »


What about '52 and '56?
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2010, 03:17:44 PM »

1948:Dewey
1952:Eisenhower
1956:Eisenhower
1960:Kennedy
1964:LBJ
1968:Nixon
1972:Nixon
1976:Ford
1980:Reagan
1984:Mondale
1988:Bush Sr.
1992:Clinton
1996:Clinton
2000:Gore
2004:Kerry
2008:Obama
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2010, 08:11:43 AM »

Logged
justW353
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,693
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2010, 10:12:35 AM »

1948:  Truman
1952:  Eisenhower
1956:  Eisenhower
1960:  Kennedy
1964:  Johnson
1968:  Nixon
1972:  Nixon
1976:  Carter
1980:  Reagan
1984:  Reagan
1988:  Bush
1992:  Clinton
1996:  Clinton
2000:  Gore
2004:  Kerry
2008:  Obama
Logged
KuntaKinte
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 523
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2010, 10:16:20 AM »



Not so sure about that. In Germany at least, Bush I was extremely popular.

I guess Germany would have voted:

2008 Obama (by 85-90% or so)
2004 Kerry
2000 Gore
1996 Clinton
1992 Bush
1988 Bush
1984 Reagan
1980 Carter

The earlier elections, I have no idea. I don't think there was much coverage and public interest of US presidential elections until the 1980s.
If Kennedy would have run for reelection in 1964, he probably would have won about 95% or so.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2010, 09:57:35 PM »



Not so sure about that. In Germany at least, Bush I was extremely popular.

How come? Was it his multilateral and inclusive approach? Was it because he supported the reunification of Germany? Or was it something else?
Logged
KuntaKinte
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 523
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2010, 01:03:35 AM »

How come? Was it his multilateral and inclusive approach? Was it because he supported the reunification of Germany? Or was it something else?

Yeah, it was the role he played in the process of reunification, for the most part.
And in those days, being a Republican was not a big malus for an American president in Europe.

The picture of the Republican party being a bunch of gun-loving, SUV-driving, minority-hating, anti-science Christian rednecks who are ridiculously uber-patriotic, don't care about the environment at all and enthusiastically support war against countries they couldn't even locate on an map was drawn in the 1990s.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2010, 01:14:29 AM »

How come? Was it his multilateral and inclusive approach? Was it because he supported the reunification of Germany? Or was it something else?

Yeah, it was the role he played in the process of reunification, for the most part.
And in those days, being a Republican was not a big malus for an American president in Europe.

The picture of the Republican party being a bunch of gun-loving, SUV-driving, minority-hating, anti-science Christian rednecks who are ridiculously uber-patriotic, don't care about the environment at all and enthusiastically support war against countries they couldn't even locate on an map was drawn in the 1990s.

Interesting analysis. It seems like back during the Cold War Europeans were more receptive of Republican Presidents because they felt that they could do a good job protecting them from the U.S.S.R. Thus, even when GOP Presidents made some aggressive or unilateral moves (such as invading Grenada and Panama, bombing Libya, or building a missile defense system), Europeans generally supported them. This is in contrast to Bush Jr.'s Presidency. Even before 9/11, Bush Jr. was extremely unpopular in Europe due to his withdrawal from anti-missile treaties and his plans for a missile defense system, despite the fact that Reagan previously supported the idea and that this idea received a lot of support in Europe before.
Logged
KuntaKinte
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 523
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2010, 01:55:09 AM »

Thus, even when GOP Presidents made some aggressive or unilateral moves (such as invading Grenada and Panama, bombing Libya, or building a missile defense system), Europeans generally supported them.
This is in contrast to Bush Jr.'s Presidency. Even before 9/11, Bush Jr. was extremely unpopular in Europe due to his withdrawal from anti-missile treaties and his plans for a missile defense system, despite the fact that Reagan previously supported the idea and that this idea received a lot of support in Europe before.

Of course, the German (and European) left strongly opposed this. They 1980s peace movement loathed Reagan. But the "silent majority" was still more or less loyal to the US.

And besides foreign politics, the GOP, as I pointed out, was not caricatured as negative as today. That is mostly the result of the extreme unpopularity of GWB, put in fact Republicans really have changed since Bush the elder left office. The majority of the party drifted further away from Europe, culturally and politically.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2010, 12:29:42 PM »

How come? Was it his multilateral and inclusive approach? Was it because he supported the reunification of Germany? Or was it something else?

Yeah, it was the role he played in the process of reunification, for the most part.
And in those days, being a Republican was not a big malus for an American president in Europe.

The picture of the Republican party being a bunch of gun-loving, SUV-driving, minority-hating, anti-science Christian rednecks who are ridiculously uber-patriotic, don't care about the environment at all and enthusiastically support war against countries they couldn't even locate on an map was drawn in the 1990s.

Pretty much at the time when they actually became that. Tongue
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2010, 06:18:52 AM »

Bush in 92? Doubt it. He fell from grace hard, here as everywhere.

It's a tough call. The modern ultra-lopsided margins would be a very recent phenomenon - since 2000 really (just as Kunta said). Reagan was Bushlike unpopular on the European left - and with good reason - but I doubt the European right saw anything wrong as of yet back then.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,704
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2010, 11:08:33 AM »

There wasn't much of a difference between Reagan and Bush Sr. and people like Kohl and Thatcher. Especially on foreign policy which is kind of the main thing that turned the rest of the world to the Republicans after Bush (though I understand that Reagan actually wanted to support Argentina in the Falklands for some inexplicable reason which really pissed Thatcher off.)
Logged
rbt48
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,060


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2010, 03:25:18 PM »

I think the GOP would have carried Western Europe (defined as the then NATO countries west of the Iron Curtain plus Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, and Ireland) in these years:
-1948
-1952
-1956
-1984
-1988.

Possibly 1972 because of Nixon's commitment to NATO, but I think he was unpopular because of Viet Nam which Europe and NATO totally disavowed.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2010, 05:05:15 PM »

Since 1948:

My guesses would be:

1948:Truman
1952:Ike
1956:Ike
1960:Nixon
1964:LBJ
1968:Nixon
1972:Nixon
1976:Ford
1980:Carter
1984:Mondale
1988:Bush Sr.
1992:Bush Sr.
1996:Clinton
2000:Gore
2004:Kerry
2008:Obama

Here's my reasoning:

1948: Truman's Administration proposed the Marshall Plan and helped Western Europe rebuild. Thus, he would win Western Europe.
1952: Ike was the liberator of Western Europe from Nazi oppression. Also, he was perceived as more experienced on military and security matters. Thus Ike wins.
1956: Ike wins for the same reasons as in 1952.
1960: Nixon wins since he portrays himself as more experienced than JFK and since he is perceived to have better knowledge of the inner workings of the govt. (since he was VP). Since Western Europeans are happy with Ike, and Nixon promises to continue Ike's policies, Western Europe votes for Nixon.
1964: Since Western Europeans are afraid Goldwater is too hawkish and might start a nuclear war, most of them vote for LBJ.
1968: Nixon promises to end the Vietnam War, and since the Democrats started that war, Western Europe trusts Nixon more.
1972: Nixon withdraws most U.S. troops from Vietnam and portrays McGovern as a weak leader who would be unable to confront the U.S.S.R. and stop Soviet aggression. Thus, he wins Western Europe again.
1976: Ford had good relations with the U.S.S.R. and was perceived as more experienced. Thus, he wins.
1980: Reagan is portrayed as too extreme and as someone who might start a nuclear war. Thus, Carter wins.
1984: Reagan isn't as extreme as thought, but his refusal to negotiate with the U.S.S.R. (and thus continually poor relations with the Soviets) upsets many Europeans. Thus, Mondale wins.
1988: Reagan establishes good relations with the U.S.S.R. and pursues detente. Thus, his VP, Bush Sr., wins.
1992: Tough one. The Cold War just ended, but many Europeans are happy with Bush Sr.'s job performance. Thus, Western Europe votes for Bush Sr. again.
1996: Clinton has good relations with Western Europe and Russia, and Dole is portrayed as a reckless unilateralist. Thus, Clinton wins.
2000: The GOP is portrayed as reckless unilateralists once again. Thus Gore wins.
2004: Same as 2000. Thus Kerry wins.
2008: Same as 2000. Thus Obama wins.
Logged
Psychic Octopus
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,948
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2010, 05:42:37 PM »
« Edited: July 08, 2010, 05:46:07 PM by NiK »

Is this scenario's POD the United States never leaving after WWII?


I'm going to go with this, with the exception of Dwight Eisenhower.

On the other hand, Western European nations (The UK, France, West Germany, etc.) would have been carved up into several states. I don't know if any of them would be considered toss ups, however.

Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2010, 05:46:03 PM »

Canada's not in Western Europe, but politically we're somewhat similar (at least when it comes to US politics)

Reagan would've won in '84, not sure about 1980.  Dukakis could've won in '88, as Free Trade was unpopular in Canada at the time (anti-Free Trade parties won a majority of the vote in 88 Canadian election, despite the Tories winning). Clinton was fairly popular here, so he would've won in at least 1996, and probably 1992 as well. Gore would probably have won, but Bush would've done respectable in 2000, but would get ass raped in 2004. And McCain too.

Kennedy was very popular here too, and I reckon Nixon wasn't popular.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2010, 11:25:08 PM »

Canada's not in Western Europe, but politically we're somewhat similar (at least when it comes to US politics)

Reagan would've won in '84, not sure about 1980.  Dukakis could've won in '88, as Free Trade was unpopular in Canada at the time (anti-Free Trade parties won a majority of the vote in 88 Canadian election, despite the Tories winning). Clinton was fairly popular here, so he would've won in at least 1996, and probably 1992 as well. Gore would probably have won, but Bush would've done respectable in 2000, but would get ass raped in 2004. And McCain too.

Kennedy was very popular here too, and I reckon Nixon wasn't popular.

How do you think 1976 would have gone for Canada? Ford seems like the kind of Republican that could have been appealing to the great North, but I still think Carter would win.

Having no clue, I would guess Ford. Carter was a southern populist, and people of his ideology don't exist to the same degree here. I of course like Carter, but Canadians who lived through his presidency remember his screw ups, whereas I know more about his recent work.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 12 queries.