Why did Nixon '60 and Ford '76.....

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

...do so much better than congressional Republicans in the same election (s)?

Yes, I know it was the norm during this time for Republican presidential nominees to outperform their congressional candidates (with the obvious exception of 1964),  but I can think of reasons for the other Republicans...Eisenhower, Reagan, and Nixon in '72 were all just exceptionally popular and they relied some on southerners who voted Democratic downballot (as did Bush in '88), but I don't see why Nixon in 1960 or Ford in 1976 would be able to do so much better than Republicans downballot. They were lackluster candidates who ultimately lost even if they came close.

I guess in '60, maybe there were some Democrats who just didn't want a Catholic in the White House. I'm drawing a blank on '76...

[TDAS04]

Anti-Catholic Democrats should explain 1960.

As for 1976, it's possible that there were some Jews and other liberal Democrats who were uncomfortable with a Southern Evangelical, and Ford was viewed as acceptable.  I think the bigger explanation is that even with Carter, there were plenty of white Southern Democrats who voted Republican at the presidential (especially in Louisiana, Mississippi, and suburban areas).

Keep in mind the massive advantage Democrats had over Republican in voter identification.  And incumbent Republican POTUS like Ford was positioned to perform well relative to that reality.

[One Term Floridian]

Anti-Catholicism as well as RN’s “experience” factor should explain much of 1960.

Imo Carter ran a poor campaign in 1976, with his victory map looking much like a regional one with wins in much of South and Northeast and not much else. Even in the South, Carter offended many of his fellow white evangelicals by agreeing to interview with Playboy and admitting to “lusting” after other women during his marriage

[Calthrina950]

Anti-Catholicism as well as RN’s “experience” factor should explain much of 1960.

Imo Carter ran a poor campaign in 1976, with his victory map looking much like a regional one with wins in much of South and Northeast and not much else. Even in the South, Carter offended many of his fellow white evangelicals by agreeing to interview with Playboy and admitting to “lusting” after other women during his marriage

I recall reading somewhere that Carter led Ford in the polls by around 30 points in June 1976, around the time of the Democratic National Convention that year. And Carter's lead collapsed completely during the intervening months, and he only won by 2 points. Carter's collapse means that the Johnson landslide of 1964 will be the last sweeping Democratic landslide (in terms of counties carried) that we will ever see. If a Democrat wins a landslide victory again, it will probably resemble Obama's maps more than those of the past.

[RINO Tom]

Anti-Catholicism as well as RN’s “experience” factor should explain much of 1960.

Imo Carter ran a poor campaign in 1976, with his victory map looking much like a regional one with wins in much of South and Northeast and not much else. Even in the South, Carter offended many of his fellow white evangelicals by agreeing to interview with Playboy and admitting to “lusting” after other women during his marriage

I recall reading somewhere that Carter led Ford in the polls by around 30 points in June 1976, around the time of the Democratic National Convention that year. And Carter's lead collapsed completely during the intervening months, and he only won by 2 points. Carter's collapse means that the Johnson landslide of 1964 will be the last sweeping Democratic landslide (in terms of counties carried) that we will ever see. If a Democrat wins a landslide victory again, it will probably resemble Obama's maps more than those of the past.

You would have made a prophetic analyst back in the 1920s, huh?  People who are engaged enough in politics to post here shouldn’t use the words “ever” and “never” or “last.”

[Calthrina950]

Anti-Catholicism as well as RN’s “experience” factor should explain much of 1960.

Imo Carter ran a poor campaign in 1976, with his victory map looking much like a regional one with wins in much of South and Northeast and not much else. Even in the South, Carter offended many of his fellow white evangelicals by agreeing to interview with Playboy and admitting to “lusting” after other women during his marriage

I recall reading somewhere that Carter led Ford in the polls by around 30 points in June 1976, around the time of the Democratic National Convention that year. And Carter's lead collapsed completely during the intervening months, and he only won by 2 points. Carter's collapse means that the Johnson landslide of 1964 will be the last sweeping Democratic landslide (in terms of counties carried) that we will ever see. If a Democrat wins a landslide victory again, it will probably resemble Obama's maps more than those of the past.

You would have made a prophetic analyst back in the 1920s, huh?  People who are engaged enough in politics to post here shouldn’t use the words “ever” and “never” or “last.”

I was referring to geography, not to electoral results. I do think a Democrat will win a landslide again, but I doubt it's going to be done in a FDR or LBJ-type blowout, with 2,000+ counties voting Democratic. If anything, it will be achieved with 1,000 or so counties.

[Sumner 1868]

I would question why anybody would think Democrats will have a landslide in the future, given we are now as far from the LBJ landslide as the Civil War was from the Spanish Flu. They've only had two Presidents who have done so since the Civil War, whereas most Republican Presidents have actually won landslides. I would even question the notion they will ever recapture Obama's level of rural support - they've moved way too far into Bloombergism for that.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would question why anybody would think Democrats will have a landslide in the future, given we are now as far from the LBJ landslide as the Civil War was from the Spanish Flu. They've only had two Presidents who have done so since the Civil War, whereas most Republican Presidents have actually won landslides. I would even question the notion they will ever recapture Obama's level of rural support - they've moved way too far into Bloombergism for that.

LMAO

[OSR stands with Israel]

Anti-Catholicism as well as RN’s “experience” factor should explain much of 1960.

Imo Carter ran a poor campaign in 1976, with his victory map looking much like a regional one with wins in much of South and Northeast and not much else. Even in the South, Carter offended many of his fellow white evangelicals by agreeing to interview with Playboy and admitting to “lusting” after other women during his marriage

I recall reading somewhere that Carter led Ford in the polls by around 30 points in June 1976, around the time of the Democratic National Convention that year. And Carter's lead collapsed completely during the intervening months, and he only won by 2 points. Carter's collapse means that the Johnson landslide of 1964 will be the last sweeping Democratic landslide (in terms of counties carried) that we will ever see. If a Democrat wins a landslide victory again, it will probably resemble Obama's maps more than those of the past.

To be fair parties did have huge convention bounces back in the day so the polling lead was quite inflated(Remember Reagan had a 16 point lead after the RNC, Dukakis had 17 point lead in 88 and then after other party convention Carter had a 1 point lead and Dukakis's lead was dropped to 7 points)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections


Reason for that is simple back in those days Conventions were the first time the vast majority of people were hearing about non incumbent candidates, and hearing about the election for the first time itself so having 4 consecutive days but nothing but positive press for each candidate is why there were such huge bumps.


Remember back in those days cable news didnt exist or had minor influence while it was the network news that had most of the influence which was just half and hour a night for the most part.

[Sumner 1868]

I would question why anybody would think Democrats will have a landslide in the future, given we are now as far from the LBJ landslide as the Civil War was from the Spanish Flu. They've only had two Presidents who have done so since the Civil War, whereas most Republican Presidents have actually won landslides. I would even question the notion they will ever recapture Obama's level of rural support - they've moved way too far into Bloombergism for that.

LMAO

Why so amused? Did you pay attention to Hillary's campaign in 2016? Or the 2018 midterms? The idea that "Dems are far-left because AOC said [insert here]!" is nonsense.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would question why anybody would think Democrats will have a landslide in the future, given we are now as far from the LBJ landslide as the Civil War was from the Spanish Flu. They've only had two Presidents who have done so since the Civil War, whereas most Republican Presidents have actually won landslides. I would even question the notion they will ever recapture Obama's level of rural support - they've moved way too far into Bloombergism for that.

LMAO

Why so amused? Did you pay attention to Hillary's campaign in 2016? Or the 2018 midterms? The idea that "Dems are far-left because AOC said [insert here]!" is nonsense.

Just look at the Dem field today

[Sumner 1868]

I would question why anybody would think Democrats will have a landslide in the future, given we are now as far from the LBJ landslide as the Civil War was from the Spanish Flu. They've only had two Presidents who have done so since the Civil War, whereas most Republican Presidents have actually won landslides. I would even question the notion they will ever recapture Obama's level of rural support - they've moved way too far into Bloombergism for that.

LMAO

Why so amused? Did you pay attention to Hillary's campaign in 2016? Or the 2018 midterms? The idea that "Dems are far-left because AOC said [insert here]!" is nonsense.

Just look at the Dem field today

The one Joe Biden has lead all year and has Kamala Harris as a semi-serious candidate?

[Calthrina950]

I would question why anybody would think Democrats will have a landslide in the future, given we are now as far from the LBJ landslide as the Civil War was from the Spanish Flu. They've only had two Presidents who have done so since the Civil War, whereas most Republican Presidents have actually won landslides. I would even question the notion they will ever recapture Obama's level of rural support - they've moved way too far into Bloombergism for that.

I would agree with this. We saw rural areas trending yet more Republican in 2018, across all types of races-gubernatorial, Senatorial, and row offices. Even in state legislative and local races, the same patterns could be detected. Popular Democratic incumbents (i.e. Amy Klobuchar) who had previously won rural areas by blowout margins lost a lot of that support, though making up for it elsewhere by gaining in urban and suburban areas. And in 2020, I expect the trend to intensify. The new social issues-i.e. transgender rights-are joining with the old ones-gun control and abortion-to say nothing of climate change, concerns over "socialism", and what have you, to keep rural areas firmly in the Republican camp.

[Calthrina950]

Anti-Catholicism as well as RN’s “experience” factor should explain much of 1960.

Imo Carter ran a poor campaign in 1976, with his victory map looking much like a regional one with wins in much of South and Northeast and not much else. Even in the South, Carter offended many of his fellow white evangelicals by agreeing to interview with Playboy and admitting to “lusting” after other women during his marriage

I recall reading somewhere that Carter led Ford in the polls by around 30 points in June 1976, around the time of the Democratic National Convention that year. And Carter's lead collapsed completely during the intervening months, and he only won by 2 points. Carter's collapse means that the Johnson landslide of 1964 will be the last sweeping Democratic landslide (in terms of counties carried) that we will ever see. If a Democrat wins a landslide victory again, it will probably resemble Obama's maps more than those of the past.

To be fair parties did have huge convention bounces back in the day so the polling lead was quite inflated(Remember Reagan had a 16 point lead after the RNC, Dukakis had 17 point lead in 88 and then after other party convention Carter had a 1 point lead and Dukakis's lead was dropped to 7 points)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections


Reason for that is simple back in those days Conventions were the first time the vast majority of people were hearing about non incumbent candidates, and hearing about the election for the first time itself so having 4 consecutive days but nothing but positive press for each candidate is why there were such huge bumps.


Remember back in those days cable news didnt exist or had minor influence while it was the network news that had most of the influence which was just half and hour a night for the most part.

This much is true, but the difference from today is that in many instances, the convention bump was sustained. Reagan, for example, won handily in 1980 and got a landslide in 1984. Nowadays, this would be impossible.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Anti-Catholicism as well as RN’s “experience” factor should explain much of 1960.

Imo Carter ran a poor campaign in 1976, with his victory map looking much like a regional one with wins in much of South and Northeast and not much else. Even in the South, Carter offended many of his fellow white evangelicals by agreeing to interview with Playboy and admitting to “lusting” after other women during his marriage

I recall reading somewhere that Carter led Ford in the polls by around 30 points in June 1976, around the time of the Democratic National Convention that year. And Carter's lead collapsed completely during the intervening months, and he only won by 2 points. Carter's collapse means that the Johnson landslide of 1964 will be the last sweeping Democratic landslide (in terms of counties carried) that we will ever see. If a Democrat wins a landslide victory again, it will probably resemble Obama's maps more than those of the past.

To be fair parties did have huge convention bounces back in the day so the polling lead was quite inflated(Remember Reagan had a 16 point lead after the RNC, Dukakis had 17 point lead in 88 and then after other party convention Carter had a 1 point lead and Dukakis's lead was dropped to 7 points)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections


Reason for that is simple back in those days Conventions were the first time the vast majority of people were hearing about non incumbent candidates, and hearing about the election for the first time itself so having 4 consecutive days but nothing but positive press for each candidate is why there were such huge bumps.


Remember back in those days cable news didnt exist or had minor influence while it was the network news that had most of the influence which was just half and hour a night for the most part.

This much is true, but the difference from today is that in many instances, the convention bump was sustained. Reagan, for example, won handily in 1980 and got a landslide in 1984. Nowadays, this would be impossible.

It wasn’t always sustained , Nixon and Carter barely hung on and Dukakis not only lost that huge convention lead but then went on to lose by a landslide. 1980, 1984 just were years where the fundamentals in almost every area possible was totally against the Democrats in ways it hasn’t been against any party since then even in 1996 and 2008.

[Calthrina950]

I would question why anybody would think Democrats will have a landslide in the future, given we are now as far from the LBJ landslide as the Civil War was from the Spanish Flu. They've only had two Presidents who have done so since the Civil War, whereas most Republican Presidents have actually won landslides. I would even question the notion they will ever recapture Obama's level of rural support - they've moved way too far into Bloombergism for that.

I would agree with this. We saw rural areas trending yet more Republican in 2018, across all types of races-gubernatorial, Senatorial, and row offices. Even in state legislative and local races, the same patterns could be detected. Popular Democratic incumbents (i.e. Amy Klobuchar) who had previously won rural areas by blowout margins lost a lot of that support, though making up for it elsewhere by gaining in urban and suburban areas. And in 2020, I expect the trend to intensify. The new social issues-i.e. transgender rights-are joining with the old ones-gun control and abortion-to say nothing of climate change, concerns over "socialism", and what have you, to keep rural areas firmly in the Republican camp.

Bumping this up because I think we can apply it to this year's gubernatorial race in Louisiana. The same thing happened to John Bel Edwards as happened to Amy Klobuchar. Edwards lost a lot of rural support throughout the state, particularly in Cajun Country, but secured his reelection by making gains in New Orleans and its suburbs. Klobuchar, on her part, lost dozens of rural counties in 2018 that she had carried in both 2006 and 2012, and only narrowly carried a majority of the state's counties overall. However, she did about as well in the Twin Cities and their suburbs as in 2012, mitigating the extent of her losses and enabling her to still cross the 60% threshold statewide.

[The Mikado]

I would question why anybody would think Democrats will have a landslide in the future, given we are now as far from the LBJ landslide as the Civil War was from the Spanish Flu. They've only had two Presidents who have done so since the Civil War, whereas most Republican Presidents have actually won landslides.

Wilson 1912, FDR at least the first three times, and LBJ 1964?

You could argue for Clinton 1996 as a landslide, for that matter. He got 379 EVs.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Guys, remember that 1933-1981 was a period of almost continious Democratic dominance in congressional elections (1933-1995 if we discount six years of Republican control over the Senate, as Democrats retained the House).

Even with Nixon's landslide victory in 1972 (absolutely massive landslide), Democrats comfortably retained the Congress, so we may just as well as "why did McGovern ran so poorly behind congressional candidates?"

[Calthrina950]

I would question why anybody would think Democrats will have a landslide in the future, given we are now as far from the LBJ landslide as the Civil War was from the Spanish Flu. They've only had two Presidents who have done so since the Civil War, whereas most Republican Presidents have actually won landslides.

Wilson 1912, FDR at least the first three times, and LBJ 1964?

You could argue for Clinton 1996 as a landslide, for that matter. He got 379 EVs.

I think this may be too overbroad of a definition. I only consider an election to be a landslide if the victor wins by at least 10% or more. You could say Wilson 1912, but he only got a plurality of the nationwide vote (41.83%) and only received the margin and number of electoral votes that he did because the Republican vote was divided. And Roosevelt's third victory in 1940 was just under a 10% margin.

[Orser67]

Guys, remember that 1933-1981 was a period of almost continious Democratic dominance in congressional elections (1933-1995 if we discount six years of Republican control over the Senate, as Democrats retained the House).

I think the answer to OP's question is pretty much this, as well as the fact that Nixon and Ford were actually pretty good candidates. Nixon was a fairly popular VP running to continue the legacy of one of the most well-liked presidents of the 20th century, and he (along with FDR) is one of just two people to be on four separate winning presidential tickets. Ford, meanwhile, somehow nearly won an election that took place just two years after his Republican predecessor resigned (there's some circular logic there, but I don't think he should just be written off as a weak candidate).