Every losing Dem this century has gotten around 48% of the popular vote

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Gore got 48.4%
Kerry got 48.3%
Hillary got 48.2%
Kamala just got 48.4%

Averages out to around 48.325

[Progressive Pessimist]

I was wrong about a lot in this election, but you can look back at my posting history that indicates how consistent I've been, and will continue being, that Democrats have a floor of 48% in the popular vote no matter what.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was wrong about a lot in this election, but you can look back at my posting history that indicates how consistent I've been, and will continue being, that Democrats have a floor of 48% in the popular vote no matter what.

Is that a challenge to Democrats?

[Fuzzy Bear Stands With S019 And Israel]

It's a no-brainer:

The 1960s realigned the electorate in such a way to where Democrats could not count on any states to support their Presidential candidates other than Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, plus DC.  They literally had no base.  Jimmy Carter did carry 10 Southern states and most Border states in 1976, but this was, in hindsight, clearly an aberration. 

The 1990s realigned the electorate in such a way as to where moderate and liberal Republcians in the Northeast and on the West Coast became Presidential Democrats, as they were opposed to the cultural conservatism of the GOP that had been becoming more socially conservative since the 1970s.  This means that the Democrats, once again, had a base of support for their Presidency.  Since 1992 the Democrats can count on the entire Northeast (except PA being a swing state), the entire Pacific Coast, and IL and MN in the Midewest (with MI and WI being swing states). 

What this means is that the Democrats are no longer dependent on outside events to mount a challenge to the Republicans.  They are no longer starting from scratch as they did during the period from McGovern through Dukakis.

[Bush did 311]

I was wrong about a lot in this election, but you can look back at my posting history that indicates how consistent I've been, and will continue being, that Democrats have a floor of 48% in the popular vote no matter what.

If Biden had stayed in he'd have broken that floor.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I was wrong about a lot in this election, but you can look back at my posting history that indicates how consistent I've been, and will continue being, that Democrats have a floor of 48% in the popular vote no matter what.

If Biden had stayed in he'd have broken that floor.

Maybe...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was wrong about a lot in this election, but you can look back at my posting history that indicates how consistent I've been, and will continue being, that Democrats have a floor of 48% in the popular vote no matter what.

If Biden had stayed in he'd have broken that floor.

He would have almost certainly gotten less than 48.0%.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I was wrong about a lot in this election, but you can look back at my posting history that indicates how consistent I've been, and will continue being, that Democrats have a floor of 48% in the popular vote no matter what.

If Biden had stayed in he'd have broken that floor.

Or if Republicans had nominated a normal candidate....

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

I was wrong about a lot in this election, but you can look back at my posting history that indicates how consistent I've been, and will continue being, that Democrats have a floor of 48% in the popular vote no matter what.

If Biden had stayed in he'd have broken that floor.

Or if Republicans had nominated a normal candidate....

I'm not confident that would have worked as well as people keep suggesting.

I'm increasingly seeing this election are a rejection of a failed status quo. Trump's tissue-thin populist demagoguery over a base of Christo-fascism is unquestionably a change. Against Harris, and perhaps even Biden (if he could have mustered a far better debate showing to "prove" the first as an anomaly), a more establishment Republican might have seen considerably lower turnout than Trump did.

[wbrocks67]

It is pretty eerie that not only is it just "at least 48%" but all 4 of them got nearly the exact same amount to the tenth decimal lol

[VALibertarian]

Pretty strong evidence that 48% is the democrat floor.

(Until it's not    )

[Randy Marsh]

I was wrong about a lot in this election, but you can look back at my posting history that indicates how consistent I've been, and will continue being, that Democrats have a floor of 48% in the popular vote no matter what.

Not Biden lol. He was losing by 7 points in his own internal polls.

This whole ceiling and floor argument is dumb. Elections happen very infrequently and you can't infer sweeping conclusions from tiny sample sizes.

Same argument as the "blue wall" before 2016. Yes, Dems had a very good run from 1992 - 2016. Republicans had an even better run before that. Things change, and doing well in 5/6 elections means almost nothing for the next one. The sample size is just too small.

[Agafin]

I was wrong about a lot in this election, but you can look back at my posting history that indicates how consistent I've been, and will continue being, that Democrats have a floor of 48% in the popular vote no matter what.

Is this going to be the new "Trump has a ceiling of 47%"?

[lfromnj]

I was wrong about a lot in this election, but you can look back at my posting history that indicates how consistent I've been, and will continue being, that Democrats have a floor of 48% in the popular vote no matter what.

Is this going to be the new "Trump has a ceiling of 47%"?

Harris is a great candidate and a great campaigner but she also hit the Dem floor.

[Agafin]

I was wrong about a lot in this election, but you can look back at my posting history that indicates how consistent I've been, and will continue being, that Democrats have a floor of 48% in the popular vote no matter what.

Not Biden lol. He was losing by 7 points in his own internal polls.

This whole ceiling and floor argument is dumb. Elections happen very infrequently and you can't infer sweeping conclusions from tiny sample sizes.

Same argument as the "blue wall" before 2016. Yes, Dems had a very good run from 1992 - 2016. Republicans had an even better run before that. Things change, and doing well in 5/6 elections means almost nothing for the next one. The sample size is just too small.

Another interesting one is Arizona where for five consecutive cycles (2000-2016) every democratic candidate received about 44% of the vote. I'm sure some people used it to argue that democrats had a 44% floor or ceiling (depending on your side) in the state whereas the reality is just that several factors (national environnement, third parties, opposing trends, McCain's favorite son effect) just coincided to produce that trend but as 2020 showed it wasn't some immutable electoral result.

[ottermax]

Based on how terrible a lot of us Dems feel right now, I'm terrified by the prospect of an election where we actually break this floor... it literally hasn't happened for most of us in our lifetimes and that day will be very depressing.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Based on how terrible a lot of us Dems feel right now, I'm terrified by the prospect of an election where we actually break this floor... it literally hasn't happened for most of us in our lifetimes and that day will be very depressing.

Just stop focussing on it and find something else to think about.

The mindset of negativity is easy to break if you get fit and think positive thoughts about people, including Republicans.

Otherwise you will end up as a 40 something hanging around most pits telling 20 y.o. girls you still have it.