Most impressive loss? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2024, 07:34:12 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)
  Most impressive loss? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which loss was most impressive?
#1
Clinton losing TX by 3.5%, 1992
 
#2
Bush losing CA by 10%, 2004
 
#3
Obama losing MT by 2.3%, 2008
 
#4
Trump losing ME by 3%, 2016
 
#5
Trump losing MN by 1.5%, 2016
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 60

Author Topic: Most impressive loss?  (Read 1134 times)
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,874
United States


« on: November 15, 2017, 12:55:32 PM »
« edited: November 15, 2017, 01:13:40 PM by dw93 »

 Most Impressive to Least:

1. Trump losing MN by 1.5%, 2016

2. Trump losing ME by 3%, 2016

3. Bush losing CA by 10%, 2004

4. Obama losing MT by 2.3%, 2008

5. Clinton losing TX by 3.5%, 1992

Reasons:

1. Maine hasn't voted Republican since 1988 and the Democrats have won it pretty decisively from 1992-2012. Honestly, I was more shocked that Trump won Maine's 2nd Congressional District than I was about him winning Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

2. Minnesota hasn't voted for a Republican since the Nixon landslide of '72 and it wasn't close in 2008 or 2012, and IRC, it wasn't close from 1988-1996 either.  The only reason this isn't number one is because Dubya made it close in 2000 and 2004.

3. This is surprising because from 1992-2000, California was trending to the Democrats big time and then all of the sudden, Bush somewhat reverses that trend and only loses it by 10 points and does so in part by winning a 40% of the Latino vote nationally, which in and of it self was shocking because it seemed like he didn't try as hard to win that vote in 2004 as he did in 2000, and in 2000 he only won around 35%.

4. Montana had a elected a Democrats in state wide races numerous times over the course of the last decade (2 two term Democratic Governors since 2004, a Senator, etc...) so it's not all that surprising that  Montana was that close in 2008 of all years.

5. This is the least surprising. Texas still leaned Democratic at the state and local level at that time and up to that point, Republicans only won Texas in Landslide years (Humphrey won in in 68, Carter won it in 76), and Perot also took a large chunk of the vote. Had Perot not been in the race, Clinton could've conceivably won Texas and very well could've in 96 as well.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.025 seconds with 15 queries.