Was the 1960 electorate the most elastic in history?

[Asenath Waite]

From everything I've read it seems to me that possibly a greater number of voters were winnable in 1960 then in any other election. Going into the race it seems that Kennedy and Nixon both were reasonably competitive with the black vote, white southerners, suburbanites who may have leaned Republican in the past but might have been more inclined to vote for Kennedy whose appeal seemed to be somewhat less populist then FDR or Truman, union members who may have distrusted Kennedy for his involvement in the McClellan Committee, Jewish voters who may have been suspicious of Kennedy because of his father's anti-Semitism.

It sort of seems like this election was the epoch of an era in which the identity of both parties was up for grabs. The Democrats were still defined by the New Deal but in an era of more widespread prosperity may not have had as strong a lock on the working class as in previous cycles, it wasn't entirely clear which party was more amenable to civil rights, crime was relatively low so "Law and Order" didn't really have much salience as an issue yet and both parties were relatively culturally diverse and culture war issues were a long way off from coming to the forefront.

[MATTROSE94]

I agree that the 1960 electorate was probably the most elastic in US political history. I would also say that the electorate was very elastic in 1976 and maybe 2000 to some extent as well.

[Asenath Waite]

I agree that the 1960 electorate was probably the most elastic in US political history. I would also say that the electorate was very elastic in 1976 and maybe 2000 to some extent as well.

76 makes a lot of sense in that in the same way the position of the parties on civil rights wasn't entirely clear in 1960 the stance of the parties on the culture war wasn't so clear in 76. Democrats on one hand were the parties of long-haired hippies but at the same time in terms of presidential nominees Ford clearly seemed to be more socially liberal. I could definitely see it in 2000 also but probably far moreso if McCain had been the nominee. Funny enough a Gore vs McCain map in 2000 I could actually see bearing some resemblance to the Kennedy vs Nixon map in 60. McCain had a reasonable shot of picking up states like Oregon, Washington, New Hampshire and Maine and since he was weak with the religious right (some of whom I could see staying home or voting for Buchanan and others maybe even taking a shot on Gore with his moralistic image) I could easily see Gore doing better in the south. 

[Intell]

1960 was actually quite polarising in New England.

[Orser67]

The period from about 1938 to 1996 was probably the most elastic period in U.S. history, and 1960 is certainly a reasonable choice for the most elastic presidential election of that period.

[Asenath Waite]

Within that larger era though the period between 1952 and 64 was i'd argue even more elastic. Prior to 52 the New Deal alignment of the parties being sharply divided along class lines was much stronger and though it may have continued at the state and congressional level it became less clear at the presidential level with Eisenhower winning a sizable minority of northern working class voters and Stevenson's reputation as the candidate of the eggheads. Post CRA the black vote was basically lost to the GOP and Democrats (at first just at the presidential level) could at best hope to not lose the white southern vote overwhelmingly but in the preceding twelve years both parties were reasonably competitive with both.

[Alcibiades]

The period from about 1938 to 1996 was probably the most elastic period in U.S. history, and 1960 is certainly a reasonable choice for the most elastic presidential election of that period.

Yes - quite remarkably in that period, every state voted for both parties at least once.

[Badger]

1976 ranks up there as well. It's amazing to see how relatively even split the most States, at least outside some traditionally Democratic Deep South ones, were

[Senator Incitatus]

To the extent there was an "electorate", certainly 1860 is the answer. I don't even know how you'd calculate elasticity for that race. It was political musical chairs.

[Catalyst138]

1992 is also a good candidate. Clinton pulled good numbers in the South and Mountain West where a modern Dem would lose in landslides, and states like New Jersey were competitive for Bush. There was also a massive third party vote in Perot, who did decently well all across the country.

[Hope For A New Era]

Most elastic electorates would be 1956, 1960, 1976, and 1992.


Also, 2016 was...maybe not elastic, but a lot of people broke from their former voting patterns. I feel like that one sticks out too.