Narrow election where the losing party came out the strongest

[Tekken_Guy]

A companion thread to the "Most Disastrous" thread. Which of these elections did the losing party come out in the strongest position?

[dw93]

2020 for the GOP as the Democratic majorities are too dependent on Manchin and Sinema, thus Biden's agenda is stalled, and no other loser in Presidential history has had the cult following that Trump has.

[darklordoftech]

Democrats might have come out of 2000 strong if it wasn’t for 9/11.

[dw93]

Democrats might have come out of 2000 strong if it wasn’t for 9/11.

Depends on how well the Democrats play their hand after the 2002 midterm, where they most certainly would've retaken both houses of Congress without 9/11. If they took the same approach of overreaching the way the GOP did after 94 and 2010, Bush would rebounded with ease ala Clinton in 1996, if not than they very well might have, and might even make Bush a one termer in the process.

[Mr. Smith]

I guess 1976 was too much of a cheap shot, huh?

The answer here is 2020.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I guess 1976 was too much of a cheap shot, huh?

The answer here is 2020.

Narrow being the tipping point state was won by less than 1 point

[darklordoftech]

Democrats might have come out of 2000 strong if it wasn’t for 9/11.

Depends on how well the Democrats play their hand after the 2002 midterm, where they most certainly would've retaken both houses of Congress without 9/11. If they took the same approach of overreaching the way the GOP did after 94 and 2010, Bush would rebounded with ease ala Clinton in 1996, if not than they very well might have, and might even make Bush a one termer in the process.

I don’t see any reason to think the Democrats would have overreached.

[EastwoodS]

2004 for Democrats, 2020 for the GOP, 1964 for the GOP, 1988 for Dems.

[Mr. Smith]

I guess 1976 was too much of a cheap shot, huh?

The answer here is 2020 then.

Narrow being the tipping point state was won by less than 1 point

Pretty sure Wisconsin fits the bill, or maybe it's like 1.2.  Either way, it was still on the unfavorable side of the PV for the winner.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I guess 1976 was too much of a cheap shot, huh?

The answer here is 2020 then.

Narrow being the tipping point state was won by less than 1 point

Pretty sure Wisconsin fits the bill, or maybe it's like 1.2.  Either way, it was still on the unfavorable side of the PV for the winner.

1.7

[Ingooo]

Why do people seem to belive that losing 2020 benefitted the GOP, or at least that they came out stronger compared to elections like 1948 or 2016 DEM ? Unless 2022 is like a R+15 year I wouldn't come to that conclusion until at least 2024.

[Alben Barkley]

Isn't it objectively 2000 since Democrats not only gained seats in both chambers of Congress, they actually tied the Senate and thus briefly took it back after losing it in 1994 until Dick Cheney was sworn it?

In 1948 the Republicans lost both the majorities they had gained two years earlier; a devastating defeat for them by any standard. Clearly the worst on this list, it's not even close.

In 1960 the Republicans did gain a decent number of seats in the House, but were still in the clear minority of both chambers. Most of their gains were probably just a return to the mean following the 1958 Democratic landslide anyway.

In 2016 Dems made some modest gains but failed to take back either chamber, and additionally lost a number of races they were expected to win. In fact for a while many thought Dems could win both chambers of Congress (or at least the Senate) as well as the presidency. So pretty underwhelming results to say the least.

In 2020 the Republicans made surprise gains in the House but lost the Senate, if by a narrower than expected margin, leading to a Democratic trifecta. I don't see how that could reasonably be spun as a more respectable defeat than 2000. If anything it's actually objectively the worst aside from 1948, as it is the only other one where at least one chamber of Congress changed hands and the other party gained a trifecta in the process.

[Alben Barkley]

Democrats might have come out of 2000 strong if it wasn’t for 9/11.

Depends on how well the Democrats play their hand after the 2002 midterm, where they most certainly would've retaken both houses of Congress without 9/11. If they took the same approach of overreaching the way the GOP did after 94 and 2010, Bush would rebounded with ease ala Clinton in 1996, if not than they very well might have, and might even make Bush a one termer in the process.

I think Bush was destined to be a one-termer if not for 9/11. Many people saw his presidency as illegitimate and considered him a lame duck. I could actually see Gore winning in a rematch.

[Pericles]

2000 both for the reasons that Alben stated and that it ultimately enabled Democrats to gain big majorities in Congress and enact their dream of healthcare reform, along with other important pieces of legislation. It is unlikely that healthcare reform would have been enacted if Democrats had won in different circumstances and had narrow majorities or even divided government.

It is too early to say for 2020, and even for 2016.

[Xing]

Long term? Definitely 2020.

[Ingooo]

Long term? Definitely 2020.

And how can you say that? It's been barely over a year.

[Person Man]

Democrats might have come out of 2000 strong if it wasn’t for 9/11.

Depends on how well the Democrats play their hand after the 2002 midterm, where they most certainly would've retaken both houses of Congress without 9/11. If they took the same approach of overreaching the way the GOP did after 94 and 2010, Bush would rebounded with ease ala Clinton in 1996, if not than they very well might have, and might even make Bush a one termer in the process.

I don’t see any reason to think the Democrats would have overreached.

Clinton was still in the driver seat of the party at least in terms of policies and without the back-to-back GOP wins in 2002 and 2004 and the subsequent push to far to the right, Democrats probably would stay where Clinton was...or more likely where the 2006 Democrats were. Maybe if they won a trifecta in 2004, the Republicans would have started to get the message and all the crap we have to deal with today would have been strangled in the crib.

[Alben Barkley]

Long term? Definitely 2020.

Ridiculous. It is literally impossible to tell that yet. This is like saying Dems were doomed long-term in early 2010 before the red wave even actually hit.

[Podgy the Bear]

Long term? Definitely 2020.

Wow, you have the ability to predict the future.  That's an amazing gift.

[Alben Barkley]

Democrats might have come out of 2000 strong if it wasn’t for 9/11.

Depends on how well the Democrats play their hand after the 2002 midterm, where they most certainly would've retaken both houses of Congress without 9/11. If they took the same approach of overreaching the way the GOP did after 94 and 2010, Bush would rebounded with ease ala Clinton in 1996, if not than they very well might have, and might even make Bush a one termer in the process.

I think Bush was destined to be a one-termer if not for 9/11. Many people saw his presidency as illegitimate and considered him a lame duck. I could actually see Gore winning in a rematch.

There's also the fact that he barely won by the skin of his teeth -- again -- in Ohio even as a wartime president who saw his approval rating plunge from historic highs due to, frankly, his own stupidity. There's almost no chance he wins again in a 9/11 free world IMO. Hillary would have thrashed him too if she hadn't pledged to serve a full Senate term in 2000.

[Sir Mohamed]

2000 is for sure not a bad answer, 2020 is too early to tell.

Perhaps that's a bit hackish, though I sometimes struggle with saying 2020 was a close election. It was only in terms of tipping point state and swing states being close. 306-232 isn't that close by modern-day standards either, and Biden crushed Trump by over 7 million votes.

[Xing]

Wow, had no idea that my guess would annoy so many people. Of course it's not written in stone, but it looks increasingly likely that Republicans will gain both chambers of Congress this year, and from that point on, it's hard to see when Democrats will next control the Senate. And 2010 isn't even a good comparison, since partisanship wasn't as bad as it is now, as Democrats literally won a Senate seat in a red state that year (not going to happen this year), and had much more room to fall from 2008. If Democrats have the same kind of drop-off in support from 2020-2024 as they did from 2008-2012, they're going to be in enormous trouble. The fact that Congressional Republican candidates did better than the top of the ticket, even in places that had Democratic incumbents, is a huge warning sign, since Democrats have recently depended on the opposite happening.

[Mr. Smith]

Long term? Definitely 2020.

Wow, you have the ability to predict the future.  That's an amazing gift.

Not much of an ability. It's quite obvious really.

These things just don't get better.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Other: 1892 for Republicans, albeit this wouldn't be clear until several months after the election.

[GregTheGreat657]

2004 for Democrats