1960
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:50:16 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  1960
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 1960  (Read 1905 times)
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 04, 2004, 01:57:26 PM »

Notice how close every state was in 1960?  In an election that was basically a tie in terms of votes, much like 2000, the vote was evenly split in many of the states.  It's amazing how polarized we have become.

The following were decided under 1%:
Hawaii
California
Minnesota
Illinois
Missouri
New Mexico
New Jersey

The following were decided under 2%:
Alaska
Michigan
Texas
Delaware

The following were decided under 3%:
Nevada
Washington
Montana
Mississsippi
Florida
South Carolina
Pennsylvania

At or under 5%:
Wisconsin
North Carolina
West Virginia
Oregon
New York
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2004, 02:45:15 PM »

Yeah I know what you mean...Partisan states took a sharp turn upward in the 80s and has been steady ever since....even a seemly close election like 2000 had large partisanship

Average State Margin of Victory in 1960: 8.16%
Average State Margin of Victory in 2000: 15.21%
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2004, 05:02:43 PM »
« Edited: September 04, 2004, 05:04:04 PM by Lunar »

I think the way the states were set up in 1960 was very productive to democracy.  Most states had a very large say in the outcome, and there would be a reason for both candidates to campaign in Texas, New York, California, etc.

If Kennedy had made one more visit to Anchorage, he might have carried the state.  Same could be said about Nixon and Illinois, or any of those states really.
Logged
Niles Caulder
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 638


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2004, 08:08:34 PM »

I'm not so sure it's the case that the nation became all that polarized as much as it's the Political Parties that started catering to the nation's polarity.

I think we have to give credit to Nixon and his realignment of the national dialogue along (pre-existing) ideological divides at a time when the Democratic Party had failed to sustain the support needed to stay in power.

Granted this was on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam, so the argument that these were 'polarizing' to the American electorate and the Two-Party system responded is a good way of looking at it, too.
Logged
qwerty
Dick Nixon
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 706
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2004, 04:33:14 AM »

There was a lot of cheating in that election, on both sides. It will be very interesting to see how history judges it.

I think that Nixon made a huge mistake in choosing Lodge as his running mate, which he did in an attempt to win Kennedy's home state of Mass.

Had he chosen Gerald Ford or Clare Boothe Luce, he could likely would have won the election.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 11 queries.