An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Sabato’s Crystal Ball: CLOSE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS?

sabato_crystal_ball.gif

Sabato’s Crystal Ball’s Rhodes Cook says, CLOSE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS: Not the American norm

For those voters who have come of age in the 21st century, the extremely close presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 must seem like the norm. But that is hardly the case. Over the course of American history, there have been more presidential elections decided by landslide margins than have been determined by narrow margins.

Of the 46 contests held since nationwide tallies of the popular vote began in the early 1800s:

* Twenty elections (or 43 percent) have been decided by a landslide margin of 10 percentage points or more.
* Twelve others (26 percent) have been clear-cut victories settled by margins ranging from 5 to 9.9 percentage points.
* Fourteen presidential contests (30 percent) have been determined by fewer than 5 percentage points.

The 2000 and 2004 elections fit snugly into the latter category. But in considering how unusual this is, ponder the fact that only once before in the nation’s history have there been at least three close presidential elections in a row. That streak occurred in the late 19th century, and ended with the decisive election of 1896 that tilted the political balance toward the Republicans for a generation to come. Might the 2008 election be so definitive?

Neither party gained the upper hand in presidential voting from 1876 through 1892. Each race was decided by a margin of 3 percentage points or less. Three contests were won by the Republicans, two by the Democrats.

And two of the elections that the Democrats lost in this period–those of 1876 and 1888 were Electoral College “misfires”–Democratic victories in the popular vote, Republican triumphs in the all-important electoral vote. That was the same dynamic evident in 2000, when Democrat Al Gore defeated Republican George W. Bush by more than 500,000 votes in the popular tally, which was trumped by Bush’s 5-vote edge in the Electoral College.

MORE

  • daveinboca
    I would argue that polls consistently over the last half-decade demonstrate that basic political/cultural beliefs in the USA among the electorate are roughly 35% conservative, 20% liberal, and about 45% what used to be called "mugwumps," [i.e., your mug is on one side of the fence & your "wump" is on the other, as Plunkett once put it, I believe.]

    The predominantly liberal media [network, cable, print] make the 20% of Americans who subscribe to "progressive" values appear much larger a percentage than they really are. And the two Left Coasts control the narrative except in "flyover country" where talk radio rules, and tr is conservative.

    The reason Repubs always exceed media expectations is twofold: the tendency for conservatives to actually turn up at the polls on election day & vote and of course, the second reason is the delusional nature of the left, which always thinks that it is stronger & better placed than it is in the last few days of the campaign, at least for POTUS. The Left is in PC denial over all sorts of things, first & foremost, its own relative unimportance compared to its bloated self-esteem.

    Obama appears to be one more articulate, but shallow idealist whose intentions are certainly honorable, but whose supporters have a million axes to grind, many of them products of their own immoderate view of their own self-importance.

    And why is it that almost all Dem candidates for POTUS are lawyers? Not since Gerry Ford has the Republican Party run a lawyer at the top of the ticket [unless Bob Dole went to law school].

    The American people generally rate lawyers somewhere between politicians & IRS investigators, two other unpopular professions.
  • timr
    So, you think that the MSM is liberal. Why? From everything that I have seen over the last 8 years, it is the opposite. Bush got softball questions, he "won" the debates, the press covered for him when he made "gaffes" or like I call it lies. Then in the period from 911 until over a year after the Iraq invasion, the so called "liberal" MSM was as pro war as Bush was-they beat the drums loudly, and did not give any anti war story any space. Then comes the 04 election, where once again the MSM was in full cry after Kerry, repeating endlessly all of the republician talking points-just as they did to Gore in 2000. On to 2008. Pew discovered that McCain gets over 55% positive stories in the MSM, while Obama gets over 60% negative stories. Once again following the republician talking points exactly. It gets to be quite obivious when the networks spend weeks on every negative story line on Obama that first HRC throws out, and now what McCain gives out. It remains amazing to me that the "MSM" asks Obama every question that the republician machine gives them, but never asks McCain any of the questions raised by the Obama camp. In fact, the networks go so far as to cover up McCains lies(CBS evening news(dropped an answer and subbed an answer from a different question), and Andrea Mitchell on NBC and the ABC news programs, along with CNN. Fox need not be mentioned as they are just a propaganda arm of the republician party). Yet republicians of all stripes continue to whine about how the MSM is liberal. Even the WSJ had an article that proved the exact opposite. So quit whining, the republician party pretty much owns the MSM, and an objective look at the numbers of both pro and con stories proves it.
  • DLS
    Well, normal people think the mainstream media is liberal because it's so liberal. Nobody but the zany view the media as radicals such as FAIR [sic] view it, say.

    McCain will probably do better than he was originally expected (and much better than the media continuously will have "predicted" to try to shape those results even more in their Obama's favor) by the end of the year, though the trend this year is obvious. McCain is not smart to rely on a miracle like Gore's loss to Bush in the debates in 2000, that gave the public hope that Bush might win, and caused a large shift in support that continued and eventually got Bush elected that year. The gap between Obama and McCain (albeit enlarged as desired by the media) is very large and I just don't see McCain surviving this the way he survived the primaries.

    Michelle Obama's "proud of America" controversial remark was the only thing that hurt Obama to date (see trend throughout this year as well as earlier; what now counts is everything since Super Tuesday). It remains to be seen if Obama's far left ploy of $1,000 energy rebates (Demogrant-like and Chavez-like vaguely) that would be financed by windfall profits taxes (Carter disaster) will harm him; logic says this ordinarily would seriously if not gravely harm his campaign, but only time will tell.


    http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08...

    http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08...
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC