When and how will a candidate break 55% again?

[Sir Mohamed]

When and under wich circumstances will a candidate (of both parties; incumbent or non-incumbent) hit the 55% mark in the popular vote again? It didn't happen since Reagans reelection in 1984, but several times in the the decades before.

Is this a signal for more political polarization?

[Skill and Chance]

A popular incumbent running in a two way race with peace and 4% economic growth.  55-56% is probably the absolute ceiling for a candidate in today's world, though.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hillary would have broken 55% in 2008.

[/]

Umm Bernie...

[NeverAgain]

Umm Bernie...

I'd say it will have to be 2020. When he wins everything but Arkansas, because of the Hillary drones.

[Leinad]

Hillary would have broken 55% in 2008.

I don't think so--Obama's 1) more likeable, 2) more fresh in '08, and 3) didn't vote for the Iraq War. He was the better candidate in that election for sure.

Plus, his candidacy was objectively one of the best ever--he inspired "hope" and "change" and all that jazz like nobody's business--igniting the base and winning over moderates--and he was one of the first candidates to utilize modern technology to help him. This is how he beat Hillary in the primaries--an impressive feat, given that the pre-anointed establishment favorite is rarely ever beaten.

To pivot this back to the original question: if Obama couldn't do it, I'm not sure if anyone else can. It's too polarized nowadays--most people who vote in general elections seem to just robotically vote for one party or the other.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Three things would have to happen:

1. A popular incumbent running for a second term
2. A poor choice by the other party
3. No significant 3rd Party candidates

The crazy thing is how polarized we are and how the map would look in 55-43 elections SOLELY BASED ON PVI:

GOP Wins 372-150-16 (b/c of PVI rounding to nearest number):

DEM Wins 369-153-16:

Now, I do think Arizona might fall before Missouri, for instance, but this is just how PVI works sometimes.

[Blue3]

2008 Obama, if...
1. There was no Reverend Wright controversy
2. Obama didn't make the comment about how some people cling to the guns and Bible in times of change

[Mister Mets]

This probably needs a popular centrist running in a very favorable environment. A subpar opponent would help.

McCain could have done if Bush's approvals ratings were 50% rather than low 30s.

Democrats have picked candidates who have ceilings. Kerry was an antiwar protestor from a very liberal state. Obama was a liberal activist from an increasingly liberal state, although you could imagine him reaching 55% against a George Allen type.

[Hydera]

2008 Obama, if...
1. There was no Reverend Wright controversy
2. Obama didn't make the comment about how some people cling to the guns and Bible in times of change

3. If he formally asked Hillary to be the VP and she accepted.  

4. If the Obama Campaign worked more to denounce comments about McCain's race/age amongst the supporters of their campaign. This could of created some good will a-la Sister Souljah moment in 1992.




On #3. A lot of inner south areas that swinged towards McCain were counties that Hillary won in the 2008 Primary.


This might of Gotten them Missouri, Montana, and Georgia.

And that would be it. 394 EV's but not a blowout Electoral landslide which most people consider 400+ EV to be.  Any 8%+ McCain states would of been out of reach.

The only way 400+ EV's would happen is if they won Arizona and that would only happen if the Republican candidate was other than McCain so there wasn't a homestate bonus.

Or Alternatively. Lets say that the 2008 recession happened much earlier. in 2007 and the bottom in 2008 Instead of the Recession occurring in 2008(3 mil jobs lost) and bottoming out in 2009(5 mil jobs lost).

That much unemployment would of created a map like this.

Obama wins 60-63%. But due to geographic polarization he doesn't win a lot of interior states.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I don't see the ideological polarization ending, so it will happen when minorities make up around 35% of the vote, or when whites nationwide start voting like southern whites.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hillary would have broken 55% in 2008.

I don't think so--Obama's 1) more likeable, 2) more fresh in '08, and 3) didn't vote for the Iraq War. He was the better candidate in that election for sure.

Plus, his candidacy was objectively one of the best ever--he inspired "hope" and "change" and all that jazz like nobody's business--igniting the base and winning over moderates--and he was one of the first candidates to utilize modern technology to help him. This is how he beat Hillary in the primaries--an impressive feat, given that the pre-anointed establishment favorite is rarely ever beaten.

To pivot this back to the original question: if Obama couldn't do it, I'm not sure if anyone else can. It's too polarized nowadays--most people who vote in general elections seem to just robotically vote for one party or the other.

I felt Hillary would have won Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, and only lost Indiana and North Carolina

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hillary would have broken 55% in 2008.

I don't think so--Obama's 1) more likeable, 2) more fresh in '08, and 3) didn't vote for the Iraq War. He was the better candidate in that election for sure.

Plus, his candidacy was objectively one of the best ever--he inspired "hope" and "change" and all that jazz like nobody's business--igniting the base and winning over moderates--and he was one of the first candidates to utilize modern technology to help him. This is how he beat Hillary in the primaries--an impressive feat, given that the pre-anointed establishment favorite is rarely ever beaten.

To pivot this back to the original question: if Obama couldn't do it, I'm not sure if anyone else can. It's too polarized nowadays--most people who vote in general elections seem to just robotically vote for one party or the other.

I think Clinton in 1992 ran a better campaign

[henster]

I think a Dem candidate could break 55% against Trump.

[Orser67]

Bush might have if there had been an election in 2002

[bobloblaw]

Bush might have if there had been an election in 2002

Bush might have in 2004 had there not been an Iraq war. The economic models predicted Bush to win 56% in 2004.

[Kingpoleon]

I could see a President Rubio with 53-42 approval ratings crush Representative Keith Ellison in 2020 55-44.

[sg0508]

Economic boom with limited "foot in the mouth" moments.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I can see Hilary breaking 52 percent of vote against Trump nxt year if the economy is growing at  3 percent or higher. She got her lift in Sept when economy rebounded. But Trump is very poor candidate.

[DS0816]

Averaging the last two elections (2008 and 2012), that would be winning the U.S. Popular Vote by roughly 14.5 to 17 million raw votes. That would be like a dream election for the Democrats in which even Texas carries. (This current Republican Party won’t get there before the Democrats.)

[TarHeelDem]

Clinton if she faces Trump next November, or maybe her VP if they're really popular and run in 2024.

[Sasquatch]

Bush might have if there had been an election in 2002

Bush 55%  385 EV
Kerry 44%  153 EV

[Rockefeller GOP]

IMO, not until enough either Southern Whites feel comfortable voting Dem again or enough racial minorities feel comfortable voting Republican.

[I support Sanders]

Once the GOP ceases to exist, sometime in the 2020s, and the remains of the GOP base split the vote between the Libertarian and Constitution Parties. The final count will have the Democrats receiving 55% of the votes, the Libertarians receiving (33%), and the Constitution Party receiving 9%, with some minor parties accounting for the rest of the vote.