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

[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.

[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

[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.