3 best and worst elections in past 82 years

[OSR stands with Israel]

By worst I dont mean worst margin of defeat I mean worst overall in everything and most impactfull or best by biggest margin of victory but by magnitude ,how it impacted the party, and how much government they controlled

Republicans:
Best:
1. 1980( Obviously)
2. 2004(Controlled all three branches of govenrment for first time since Depression)
3. 1994( Gave them congress)

Worst

1. 1932( Wiped republicans out completly)
2. 2008(Nearly a repeat of 1932)
3.  1958(Ensures republicans in minority in senate until 1980 and house until 1994)


Democrats
Best
1. 1932( Obviously)
2. 1964( Democrats at their peak)
3.2008( Democrats get nearly total control of government)

1. 1980(Obviously)
2. 1994(Lost congress and gave republicans the advantage in those elections since then)
3. 1968(End of New Deal Coaltion)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Best
Republicans
1. 1980: Reagan's election ends the New Deal coalition and the Deep South becomes solidly Republican.
2. 1994: Republicans take control of both House and Senate for the first time in 40 years.
3. 1968: Nixon campaigns as a moderate and voters repudiate both ideological extremes in the Democratic Party.  Wallace also splits the Democratic vote, helping Nixon carry a number of Southern states.

Democrats
1. 1932: Republicans are almost completely decimated in the federal government and in many states; Democrats have remained more popular ever since, in large part due to the "party of the rich" smear against the GOP first used in this election.
2. 1992: The last major realignment, when Democrats begin to dominate with moderates.
3. 2008: Obama's election leads to the rise of the Tea Party movement, which damages the GOP's prospects and hands many close elections to Democrats from 2010 onward.

The worst is the same, only in reverse (Democrats' best as Republicans' worst, and vice versa.)

[Maistre]

Wallace also splits the Democratic vote, helping Nixon carry a number of Southern states.

wtf

[Rockefeller GOP]

Wallace also splits the Democratic vote, helping Nixon carry a number of Southern states.

wtf

What was controversial about this?  Wallace was CLEARLY to the left of Nixon on fiscal issues, and Nixon was not willing to compromise his pro-civil rights views enough to win the Dixiecrat vote, so Humphrey and Wallace left Nixon the leftovers (i.e., not the old Southern Democrats and not the Black vote), which were mostly moderate suburban voters who helped usher in the new, much more Republican, South.

[Maistre]

The er...problem with that statement is that somehow Wallace stole votes from Humphrey (and I know this is especially hard for you to hear Rocky) in the South. I mean, it's pretty obvious the correlation between the swing from 60-64 (i.e. Southern whites who were attracted to the Goldwater campaign) and the Wallace vote. These folks were in rebellion against the national Democratic Party and obviously were not going to vote for Humphrey.

Here is a good example: Marion County, SC

1960:
Kennedy   59.3%
Nixon           40.7%   

1964:
Johnson   39.0%
Goldwater   61.0%   

1968:
Humphrey   41.4%
Nixon           36.8%   
Wallace   21.8%

[Maistre]

Coulter is partially correct (of course she is abusing the facts to suit her own purpose) that a lot of that Wallace support came from blue-collar workers from the North (some polls were estimating that Wallace had has much of 50% of the union vote) and that Humphrey's late surge came in part from labor unions cracking the whip and bringing them home as well as Wallace's running mate, Le May, scaring them away.

[Mr. Smith]

Believe it or not I don't believe the best for Dems auto equates to worst for GOP nor vice versa.

There are obvious ones, but not all of them.

The Best 3 for the Dems are:

1. 1932 (The beginning of near one party-rule...after the 20's was the other way)
2. 1964 (a mini-1932)
3. 2008 (Dems gain a filibuster-proof supermajority in Congress and take the Presidency in a decisive landslide...would've been 1932 if Obama had just been more experienced and forceful)

The Worst for them

3. 1994 (40 years of House control...lost, the whole Congress went GOP, and Gingrich/Hastert ensured obstruction)
2. 1972 (An absolute snake cheated his way to victory and everyone fell to "dirty tricks", and McGovern had the Eagleton, and with China well...)
1. 1980 (Death of the New Deal)



The Best for GOP

1. 1980 (Beginning of Regressive far-right insanity)
2. 1952 (Topple a 20 year reign and realigns coastal small states, Left Coast, and the Flyover country...latter of which are all but fortress states that only voted the other way in 1964)
3. 2004 (All 3 big chambers under their hands, the War is still popular, and dissenters are simply called "unpatriotic")

The Worst for GOP

3. 1992 (dishevelment of Reaganland at the hands of Clinton, California and the Northeast permanently realign against them)
2. 1964  (a mini-1932)
1. 1932 (nearly extinguished)

[OSR stands with Israel]

Believe it or not I don't believe the best for Dems auto equates to worst for GOP nor vice versa.

There are obvious ones, but not all of them.

The Best 3 for the Dems are:

1. 1932 (The beginning of near one party-rule...after the 20's was the other way)
2. 1964 (a mini-1932)
3. 2008 (Dems gain a filibuster-proof supermajority in Congress and take the Presidency in a decisive landslide...would've been 1932 if Obama had just been more experienced and forceful)

The Worst for them

3. 1994 (40 years of House control...lost, the whole Congress went GOP, and Gingrich/Hastert ensured obstruction)
2. 1972 (An absolute snake cheated his way to victory and everyone fell to "dirty tricks", and McGovern had the Eagleton, and with China well...)
1. 1980 (Death of the New Deal)



The Best for GOP

1. 1980 (Beginning of Regressive far-right insanity)
2. 1952 (Topple a 20 year reign and realigns coastal small states, Left Coast, and the Flyover country...latter of which are all but fortress states that only voted the other way in 1964)
3. 2004 (All 3 big chambers under their hands, the War is still popular, and dissenters are simply called "unpatriotic")

The Worst for GOP

3. 1992 (dishevelment of Reaganland at the hands of Clinton, California and the Northeast permanently realign against them)
2. 1964  (a mini-1932)
1. 1932 (nearly extinguished)

I think 1958 was worse for the Republican then 1964 as 1958 gave Congress to democrats for a long time as 1964 didnt really impact them in the future and 2008 was definitly worse for the GOP then 1992 as Republicans lost their advantage in the electoral college as Virginia, Colorado,  Ohio,Florida, and Nevada all went from Lean Republican to Lean democrat

1968 was worse for the democrats then 1972 as 1968 was the one which destroyed the New Deal Coalition forever.

[Mr. Smith]

1968 only disrupted it, and Humphrey actually almost bagged much of the South, and blatantly took Texas

And Congressionally the Dems did decently enough.

Also 1992/1996 put Nevada into Lean D turf until Dubya and held back the South, and there was Arizona as well.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

What was controversial about this?

What's controversial is that it doesn't fit the liberal revisionist history we've been fed for so long.

I think RIP Edward Brooke is correct here.  I mean, Wallace/Humphrey were competing for the "yellow dog Democrat" group that would never vote for Nixon, helping Nixon carry NC, TN, KY, and especially SC. 

Now, the remnants of that group are pretty solid R.

There are very few, if any, remnants of that group, and besides, they can't just magically go from yellow dog Democrats to yellow dog Republicans.

The er...problem with that statement is that somehow Wallace stole votes from Humphrey (and I know this is especially hard for you to hear Rocky) in the South. I mean, it's pretty obvious the correlation between the swing from 60-64 (i.e. Southern whites who were attracted to the Goldwater campaign) and the Wallace vote. These folks were in rebellion against the national Democratic Party and obviously were not going to vote for Humphrey.

Here is a good example: Marion County, SC

1960:
Kennedy   59.3%
Nixon           40.7%   

1964:
Johnson   39.0%
Goldwater   61.0%   

1968:
Humphrey   41.4%
Nixon   36.8%   
Wallace   21.8%

Wallace had strong support from blue-collar workers who were overwhelmingly Democrat and would likely have supported Humphrey without him.  Case in point: in Michigan, he broke double digits in the union strongholds of Genesee and Macomb counties.  Plus, Wallace was polling at 22 percent early in the general election campaign, but only got 13.5 percent on Election Day, while Humphrey went from 29 percent in the polls to 42.7 percent on Election Day.  Your "example" really isn't an example, because Nixon did better there in 1960, which was before Goldwater, Johnson, and the CRA.  If anything, it further proves my point: Wallace's candidacy prevented a bigger swing from Johnson to Humphrey in that county.  Plus, Humphrey still carried the county.  In three of the five Wallace states, Humphrey beat Nixon for second.

[SingingAnalyst]

The er...problem with that statement is that somehow Wallace stole votes from Humphrey (and I know this is especially hard for you to hear Rocky) in the South. I mean, it's pretty obvious the correlation between the swing from 60-64 (i.e. Southern whites who were attracted to the Goldwater campaign) and the Wallace vote. These folks were in rebellion against the national Democratic Party and obviously were not going to vote for Humphrey.

Here is a good example: Marion County, SC

1960:
Kennedy   59.3%
Nixon           40.7%   

1964:
Johnson   39.0%
Goldwater   61.0%   

1968:
Humphrey   41.4%
Nixon           36.8%   
Wallace   21.8%

Did Humphrey rock 1968 due to a huge increase in the Black vote? Worst election was 1988. Don't Worry Be Happy, Dukakis' ride in a tank, Willie Horton, 99% of congress re-elected. Made us look stupid.