|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 09, 2020, 07:38:18 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  Was 1964 a landslide?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Was 1964 a landslide?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 25

Author Topic: Was 1964 a landslide?  (Read 2328 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« 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.
Logged
Cashcow
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,843


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 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.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 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.
Logged
Bugs
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 574


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2004, 06:06:09 am »

61%-39% popular vote and 486-52 EV is a landslide.  I say yes it was.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2004, 06:09:52 am »

Two ways to answer the question:
a) Yes, it was.
b) No, landslides do not exist.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2004, 07:07:38 am »

He didn't get 500 EVs.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2004, 07:13:12 am »

Neither did George Washington.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 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.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2004, 09:24:27 am »

Sorry Phil, there weren't that many Presidential electors in the 18th century!
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,415
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2004, 09:26:18 am »

I don't see why something has to be 500 to classify as a "landslide."
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 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.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 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.
Logged
qwerty
ghwbush
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 706
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2004, 09:55:55 am »

Yes, it was a very impressive landslide.
Logged
J-Mann
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,195
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 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.
Logged
J-Mann
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,195
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 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.
Logged
giving birth to thunder
BRTD
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 88,992
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 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.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,625
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 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
Logged
Redefeatbush04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,504


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 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
Logged
Hitchabrut
republicanjew18
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674


Political Matrix
E: 8.38, S: 7.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2004, 06:48:47 pm »

Yes.

A fact: According to the Gallup Archive, early in the campaign, Johnson led 77%-18%
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 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%.
Logged
J-Mann
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,195
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 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.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 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?
Logged
Trilobyte
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 397


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 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.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 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?
Logged
J-Mann
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,195
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines