Greatest landslide
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:34:54 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)
  Greatest landslide
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: Which do you consider the greatest landslide?
#1
1936 - FDR
 
#2
1964 - LBJ
 
#3
1972 - Nixon
 
#4
1984 - Reagan
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 62

Author Topic: Greatest landslide  (Read 6071 times)
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2005, 10:12:56 AM »


Thanks! I really had no idea the site offered this service. Is part of the reason the Republicans win so many counties that the bread-basket states have so many whereas the coastal states have so few?
South, too. Texas alone has over 200, IIRC Georgia has the second highest no. I would guess blindly that Nebraska's counties have the lowest average population.
Logged
skybridge
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,919
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2005, 05:40:19 PM »

Say, who was Reagan's Karl Rove?
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 #27 on: February 03, 2005, 06:06:22 PM »

NIxon
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2005, 07:06:55 PM »


What do you mean?
Logged
skybridge
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,919
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2005, 07:14:43 PM »
« Edited: February 04, 2005, 07:44:42 AM by skybridge »


Who was to Ronald Reagan what Karl Rove is to George W. Bush? Basically, who was his campaign strategist.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2005, 07:11:19 PM »

I'm going to use the following scheme: I induce a 10% shift to the loser in every state in each landslide, to weed out the landslides with a deceptively large number of states won.  Basically, this will show whether an election was truly a monumental landslide or actually a very close election in which nearly every state just barely went to the victor.

1936:



Roosevelt 284 (50.80% PV)
Landon 247 (46.55% PV)

1964:



Johnson 301 (51.05% PV)
Goldwater 237 (38.47% PV)

1972:



Nixon 301 (50.67% PV)
McGovern 237 (47.52% PV)

1984:



Mondale 278 (50.56% PV)
Reagan 260 (48.77% PV)

So, according to this scheme, 1964 and 1972 are tied (!) for first in the EV, with Johnson barely getting a higher percentage of the PV, making him the overall winner.  In third is 1936, and in fourth is 1984, the only election in which a 10% shift made the victor into the loser.  So, to summarize:

1. 1964
2. 1972
3. 1936
4. 1984

Yes, Reagan lovers, I'm sorry to say that your favorite president wasn't the one who had the greatest landslide in US history. Smiley
Logged
skybridge
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,919
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2005, 07:48:55 PM »

I'm going to use the following scheme: I induce a 10% shift to the loser in every state in each landslide, to weed out the landslides with a deceptively large number of states won.  Basically, this will show whether an election was truly a monumental landslide or actually a very close election in which nearly every state just barely went to the victor.

1936:



Roosevelt 284 (50.80% PV)
Landon 247 (46.55% PV)

1964:



Johnson 301 (51.05% PV)
Goldwater 237 (38.47% PV)

1972:



Nixon 301 (50.67% PV)
McGovern 237 (47.52% PV)

1984:



Mondale 278 (50.56% PV)
Reagan 260 (48.77% PV)

So, according to this scheme, 1964 and 1972 are tied (!) for first in the EV, with Johnson barely getting a higher percentage of the PV, making him the overall winner.  In third is 1936, and in fourth is 1984, the only election in which a 10% shift made the victor into the loser.  So, to summarize:

1. 1964
2. 1972
3. 1936
4. 1984

Yes, Reagan lovers, I'm sorry to say that your favorite president wasn't the one who had the greatest landslide in US history. Smiley

I think 1936 looks the best on your maps.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2005, 08:02:14 PM »

I think 1936 looks the best on your maps.

I'm going based on the electoral votes the candidate wins; if you want to go based on how many states the candidate wins, then yes, 1936 would be the winner.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2005, 09:10:44 AM »

Illinois in 1964 looks...weird. Has there ever been a real election where Illinois and Indiana agreed with each other but with none of the six surrounding states?
Also, Illinois is the only state to be won by the national winner by less than 10% at each of these elections...while SD would be the national anti-bellwether if these maps were real election results, siding with the loser every time.
Logged
went that way
Rookie
**
Posts: 54


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 06, 2005, 09:23:09 AM »

1936 FDR won that one losing olny 8 electoral votes and two states. although the stuffing of the court lost him popularity later.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 06, 2005, 09:14:15 PM »

I'm going to use the following scheme: I induce a 10% shift to the loser in every state in each landslide, to weed out the landslides with a deceptively large number of states won.  Basically, this will show whether an election was truly a monumental landslide or actually a very close election in which nearly every state just barely went to the victor.

1936:



Roosevelt 284 (50.80% PV)
Landon 247 (46.55% PV)

1964:



Johnson 301 (51.05% PV)
Goldwater 237 (38.47% PV)

1972:



Nixon 301 (50.67% PV)
McGovern 237 (47.52% PV)

1984:



Mondale 278 (50.56% PV)
Reagan 260 (48.77% PV)

So, according to this scheme, 1964 and 1972 are tied (!) for first in the EV, with Johnson barely getting a higher percentage of the PV, making him the overall winner.  In third is 1936, and in fourth is 1984, the only election in which a 10% shift made the victor into the loser.  So, to summarize:

1. 1964
2. 1972
3. 1936
4. 1984

Yes, Reagan lovers, I'm sorry to say that your favorite president wasn't the one who had the greatest landslide in US history. Smiley

Your "10% shift" is really a 20% shift.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 07, 2005, 06:53:39 AM »

It's a 10-point swing - 10% of voters would have to switch from voting for the one party to voting for the other party.
Both usages exist. I tend to use the other one, too.

Anyways, it's hardly surprising that a 10-(20-)point swing would lead to a Mondale victory in the EV, but not a McGovern, Goldwater or Landon victory - The same is true in the PV, after all.
Logged
skybridge
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,919
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2005, 09:03:35 AM »

And to the argument that Reagan came closest to winning all 50 states--Nixon won more counties than Reagan, so doesn't that bring him nearer to winning the entire country over?
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2005, 10:06:47 PM »

Sen Gabu,

The maps are great, but your conclusion is ridiculous. 

The vote totals and the electoral vote totals don't lie.  Reeagn's victory was phenomenal. 

Your efort to shift 10% here and there reminds me of a  recent comment by John Kerry.  He told Tim Russert that he won the youth vote, won the Catholic vote, won the single women vote, and on and on.  Yet when you look at the results, he still lost the lection by 3 million votes. 

However, I will entertain the notion that the other landslide were more dramatic if you can supply the party identification numbers for the elections in question.  It isn't too impressive of a landslid if you only carried your own voters.  However, if you carried a rge majority of the independents and a significant minority of the other party, then I'll xonsider that an impressive landslide.
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,656


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2005, 08:55:55 PM »


Ed Rollins
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 09, 2005, 09:09:51 PM »

yikes!  please forgive the spelling errors in my last post.  I have to get up at 4:30 every morning, so late night posting lends to poor spelling.
Logged
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 09, 2005, 09:11:35 PM »

yikes!  please forgive the spelling errors in my last post.  I have to get up at 4:30 every morning, so late night posting lends to poor spelling.

You know you can edit your posts, right?
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 09, 2005, 09:26:14 PM »

Yeah, but if it's getting so late that I can'spell any better than that, it's not likely that I'll be able to concentrate on spellchecking either.  I should probably go to bed sooner.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2005, 12:55:33 AM »
« Edited: February 10, 2005, 12:58:33 AM by Senator Gabu, PPT »

Your "10% shift" is really a 20% shift.

I took 10% of the winners' voters from each state and made them vote for the loser.  Hence, it's a 10% shift.  The total disparity is 20%, but it's not inaccurate to call it a 10% shift.

Sen Gabu,

The maps are great, but your conclusion is ridiculous. 

The vote totals and the electoral vote totals don't lie.  Reeagn's victory was phenomenal.

Your efort to shift 10% here and there reminds me of a  recent comment by John Kerry.  He told Tim Russert that he won the youth vote, won the Catholic vote, won the single women vote, and on and on.  Yet when you look at the results, he still lost the lection by 3 million votes.

However, I will entertain the notion that the other landslide were more dramatic if you can supply the party identification numbers for the elections in question.  It isn't too impressive of a landslid if you only carried your own voters.  However, if you carried a rge majority of the independents and a significant minority of the other party, then I'll xonsider that an impressive landslide.

I can't find party identification numbers for the elections in question at the moment (though I'm still looking), but I'm curious regarding what you back up your claim with that Reagan's landslide was the greatest landslide in history.  He didn't win the largest percentage of the popular vote; that was Johnson in 1964.  He didn't win the largest percentage of the electoral vote; that was Roosevelt in 1936.  He didn't win the largest combination of popular vote and electoral vote; that was Roosevelt in 1936.  He didn't win the most unbreakable victory; that's a tie between Johnson in 1964 and Nixon in 1972.  He did win the most states, but he's tied with Roosevelt in 1936 if you count DC as a state for election purposes (which is not an unreasonable thing to do, given that it has the same number of electoral votes as Wyoming and a higher population).  What makes Reagan's landslide the greatest in history?

I'm not trying to downplay Reagan's landslide; it was indeed phenominal.  I'm not being partisan about this matter; I'm indifferent over Johnson and I put Nixon as #2.  I simply don't see what makes Reagan's landslide the greatest in history.  Every criteria I can think of has Reagan at least at #2.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 10, 2005, 06:00:34 AM »

However, I will entertain the notion that the other landslide were more dramatic if you can supply the party identification numbers for the elections in question.  It isn't too impressive of a landslid if you only carried your own voters.  However, if you carried a rge majority of the independents and a significant minority of the other party, then I'll xonsider that an impressive landslide.
I don't have the detailed data, but they definitely all did that.
I don't think Goldwater carried a single state where Republicans were a majority of voters.
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: February 10, 2005, 07:22:52 PM »

Goldwater had a very hard row to hoe.  He was trying to unseat the VP of a martyred President, and was painted as an extremist.  That's a pretty tough combination to overcome, especially at that time.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: February 10, 2005, 08:57:50 PM »
« Edited: February 10, 2005, 09:01:15 PM by Philip »

Nixon and Reagan are tied for the most states. Both won 49.

DC is a city. Counting it as a state isn't a very good idea, because the demographics are completely different.

Reagan came closest to winning every state, as has been said before. That's the sole criteria by which it can be judged the greatest landslide.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: February 10, 2005, 09:01:21 PM »

Nixon and Reagan are tied for the most states. Both won 49.

Reagan came closest to winning every state, as has been said before. That's the sole criteria by which it can be judged the greatest landslide.

He was going to visit Minnesota once and only once.  He believed it was bad form to campaign in his opponent’s home state, but the MN GOP begged him to come so he was going to do one appearance.

On the way to this appearance Air Force One had mechanical problems.  Reagan eventually relented to the pilots and cancelled his appearance.

If not for that he may have won all 50 states.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: February 10, 2005, 09:03:22 PM »

Campaign appearances are just for supporters anyway, right?
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: February 10, 2005, 09:20:55 PM »

Campaign appearances are just for supporters anyway, right?

And the local media. 

He lost by 3,731 votes.  Not a lot needs to change to flip Minnesota.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« 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 0.071 seconds with 13 queries.