Bush 2004 % = Reagan 1980 %

[A18]

IMHO, the past election most like this one: 1980.

Bush and Reagan both got just under 51% of the vote.

In both elections, the Republicans made sizeable gains in Congress.

Imagine if the Green party had nominated Nader and actually campaigned this election. Let's say he takes 6.61% away from Kerry.

Now what's a map look like? An electoral blowout. So I can't help but get the feeling that this whole thing about us being a more polarized country than ever before is just hype -- we're right back where we were in 1980.

[Nation]

You assume that Nader would have taken that much away from Kerry? I highly doubt that. It didn't matter what party he ran under.

[A18]

You assume that Nader would have taken that much away from Kerry? I highly doubt that. It didn't matter what party he ran under.

No, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying he would. I'm saying IF he did take that much of the leftist vote, it would have been an electoral blowout.

That's what happened in 1980. The left and right were just as polzarized.

[Nation]

Oh yeah, it probably would have. Not a giant blowout, but at least 400 for Bush.

Even if Nader takes away 5-6%, I think Kerry goes onto win Illinois, New York, Taxachusetts, Maryland, and (MAYBE) California.

[King]

If you look at just the real data and not fantasy results, this election was most like 76, not 80:

Carter 296-Ford 242
Bush 286-Kerry 252

Carter 50%-Ford 48%
Bush 51%-Kerry 48%

Carter Southern Governor-Ford Northern Congressman (House)
Bush Southern Governor-Kerry Northern Congressman (Senate)

Strongest 3rd Party Candidate was McCarthy, a disgrunted anti-war liberal
Strongest 3rd Party Candidate was Nader, a disgrunted anti-war liberal

[A18]

What "fantasy results?" If you look at the raw data:

Bush got 50.75% in 2004
Reagan got 50.75% in 1980

It's an identical percentage, which is what made me think to post this.

[zorkpolitics]

The data shows that in 1980 the electorate was less polarized, so that a 9.8% win by Reagan was an EV landslide.
In 1980 a 9.8% win by Reagan resulted in a huge EV win of 489 to 40. 
If Bush's margin increased to 9.8% his EV lead would only grow to 370 to 158.  The 158 EV represent the most polarized Blue states. 

[A18]

A 9.8% margin makes California, Hawaii, etc. close, so I don't see that that matters.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bush and Reagan both got just under 51% of the vote.

Anderson took votes away from both candidates. Reagan won a ruck of states by very small margins as well

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Er... no. Compared to 1980, Republican gains in 2004 were small

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Idiot. Anderson was a Liberal Republican who took votes away votes from both Reagan and Carter.
Go back to school.

[King]

A 9.8% Bush margin would result in this map on election night:



Bush" 388:
Kerry: 53
Still "Too Close to Call" (Kerry in the end) at 7AM on November 3rd:  97

[King]

How I wish the above map were for real..

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This isn't even comparing apples to oranges, to quote Tredrick, at least those are both foods, it's comparing apples to molten lava.

[A18]

This General Secretary Al guy is a snotty asshole. The GOP made sizeable gains in Congress in both elections. Nader took votes from both candidates.

And BRTD, WTF are you talking about?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This General Secretary Al guy is a snotty asshole.

Anatomically impossible, but from you it probably counts as a compliment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How exactly do you define "sizeable"? This year the House was essentially static and the GOP picked up a net total of 4 Senate seats (or wass it 5? Or 3 if we count GA as a GOP hold).
Go compare the 1980 Congressional results with those numbers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hello? In you're wet dream you gave Nader 6.61% from Kerry. Quit being a goddamned flip flopper.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's calling you an idiot. As am I. And pretty much everyone else. Goodnight.

[A18]

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

It's 6.61% from Kerry in the same way that 6.61% would be from Reagan. It's overwhelmingly from one candidate; I don't care that one or two of them voted for the other guy.

IT'S THE EXACT SAME PERCENTAGE OF THE VOTE. The conservative vote is the same. The liberal vote is the same. So we're not more polarized.

Yeah. I think I'll murder you in your sleep.

[dazzleman]

Polarized is a relative term.

Even in a landslide election, about 40% of the people voted against the winner, which is a significant minority.

I don't think the 2004 election results are really comparable to 1980 because Reagan won a broad geographical victory (489 EVs) against an incumbent president, while Bush won 286 electoral votes, almost entirely in the same states he won in 2000.

I think that compared to 1980, we are probably less polarized about economic policy, as the old New Deal populism has declined.  We are however, more polarized on social issues, and this is reflected in the sharp geographical divide among the states.  While there were states that leaned more liberal and conservative in 1980, nobody then spoke of red and blue states, and there were many more states that could presumably go to either party than their are today.

I think that liberals have been leading a sustained assault on traditional values, and those who favor those values have been slow to wake up to that fact.  Under a false veil of tolerance, they have sought to demonize the religion adhered to, in one form or another, by 90% of Americans.  They want to make it so you have to be afraid to wish somebody a Merry Christmas.

In some cases, an assault on "traditional" values is good, in the sense that racial discrimination and hateful treatment toward homosexuals was something traditional that most people simply accepted as part of the landscape.  But liberals have gone far beyond seeking to right past wrongs, and are looking to create, in my opinion, a society that will be very sad and hateful, and intolerant of any views that these elites don't consider politically correct.

All this was just a blip on the horizon in 1980.

[opebo]

>Under a false veil of tolerance, they have sought to demonize the >religion adhered to, in one form or another, by 90% of Americans. 

What 'false veil'?  What 'demonization'?  If one's ideal is tolerance, then one naturally will be against religion, because it is intolerant.