Election results that would have seemed laughably implausible before they happened

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

1. If somebody had predicted in say 1955 that Lyndon Johnson would eventually be elected president it would have seemed fairly reasonable. If however you created a timeline wherein he won in such a massive landslide that he took rock ribbed Republican Vermont but lost the Deep South as a native son of the region to a Republican senator that wanted to privatize the TVA your sanity would likely be called into question.

2. On paper it would have been a far safer bet to predict that New York native Donald Trump or socially moderate hawk John McCain would overperform in the New York area and it’s surrounding suburbs then evangelical culture warrior George W Bush. If McCain has been the nominee under different circumstances or the nature of Trump’s campaign had been significantly different they very well may have.

3. Similarly in 2007 it would have seemed laughable to predict that Barack Obama would have a far stronger showing with white working class midwesterners then Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or particularly that Hillary’s candidacy would be the final nail in the coffin for Democrats ever hoping to be reasonably competitive in West Virginia again.

I think all of these are evidence that timing and circumstances matter a lot more then weather or not one candidate is a “good fit” for a particular region or demographic.

Any others?

[GregTheGreat657]

1. In 2008, a billionaire Republican carrying Michigan would seem highly unlikely

[Sir Mohamed]

Between 2012 and 2016, it would have been highly implausible a Dem candidate carries AZ and GA but loses OH and FL by mid single digits.

[GregTheGreat657]

2. Saying that someone with Mitt Romney's views would be sweeping all the counties in WV would probably get you committed to a mental institution if you said that in the 90s

[GregTheGreat657]

3. Pre-Reagan, one would be considered to be that era's equivalent of a troll, or be institutionalized for saying that Vermont and New Hampshire vote even be competitive in a year that wasn't a D landslide

4. In the pre-Reagan era, it would be crazy for CA to be considered solid  D, but TX to be solid R

[Schiff for Senate]

3. Pre-Reagan, one would be considered to be that era's equivalent of a troll, or be institutionalized for saying that Vermont and New Hampshire vote even be competitive in a year that wasn't a D landslide

4. In the pre-Reagan era, it would be crazy for CA to be considered solid  D, but TX to be solid R

Also ME. ME and VT were the only two states that rejected FDR all four times (they were the only two Landon 1936 states).

[OSR stands with Israel]

3. Pre-Reagan, one would be considered to be that era's equivalent of a troll, or be institutionalized for saying that Vermont and New Hampshire vote even be competitive in a year that wasn't a D landslide

4. In the pre-Reagan era, it would be crazy for CA to be considered solid  D, but TX to be solid R

Eh McGovern only lost CA by 13 while he lost TX by 33 . McGovern actually did more relatively better in California than any modern Democrat until Gore 2000

[MT Treasurer]

November 1976 -

In 1980, the result in VT will be far closer to that of AR than that of NH.

November 1988 -

In 1992, a Southern Democrat will beat the incumbent Republican President in NH at poll closing time while losing TX & NC in the same election.

November 1996 -

The Republican candidate for President in 2000 will easily win WV while underperforming Bob Dole in Fairfax County, VA (with no major third-party/independent candidate in the race). 

November 2004 -

The Democratic candidate for President in 2008 (not named Evan Bayh) will carry the state of Indiana but lose Missouri.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Donald Trump in 2016 would slightly lose ground from Mitt Romney in Illinois statewide, while flipping the 3 Barack Obama 2012 states that share a border with it.

[Mr. Smith]

A penniless, generic guy beating a billionaire in the suburbs, and especially Arizona would be laughable.

[Skill and Chance]

Telling people in Delaware in 1972 that Biden would be president 50 years in the future would seem ridiculous. 

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

That the Republican nominee would win Florida and Ohio while losing one of Nebraska's electoral votes.

[Skill and Chance]

That the Republican nominee would win Florida and Ohio while losing one of Nebraska's electoral votes.

The obsession with Ohio never made sense to me.  Other than 2004, it's been significantly right of the nation forever.

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

Being told in 2008, or really any time before 2020, that Georgia would vote to the left of both Florida and North Carolina in 2020.

Being told in 2008 that Kansas would vote to the left of Missouri in 2020, that Texas would be to the left of Ohio and Iowa, and that Alaska was closer than Colorado and Virginia.

Being told that Republicans would win an EV in Maine while Democrats win one in Nebraska at the same time.

[VPH]

Hearing in the early 1970s when he was a cranky Liberty Union candidate that Bernie Sanders would mount a massively popular Presidential primary challenge to a former First Lady and US Senator and win over 20 primaries/caucuses.