The "how I will be watching the election results" thread

D

droid

Guest
Mr. Tea said:
Yeah, it was a landslide in terms of Congressional seats, but I think the actual popular vote was something like 52% to 46% - how big is that margin, by historical US general election standards? That's not rhetorical, I actually have no idea.
Click to expand...

I thought it was 52-47?

Collected some figures to prove to a mate of mine that it wasn't the landslide (in popular votes) it should have been:

The history of ‘landslide victories’:

61.1%—Lyndon Johnson, 1964
60.8%—Franklin Roosevelt 1936
60.7%—Richard Nixon, 1972
60.3%—Warren Harding, 1920
58.5%—Ronald Reagan, 1984
58.2%—Herbert Hoover, 1928
57.4%—Franklin Roosevelt, 1932
57.4%—Dwight Eisenhower 1956
56.4%—Theodore Roosevelt, 1904
56.0%—Andrew Jackson, 1828

In the last 100 years, the only presidents to win by a smaller margin than Obama are Bush II (twice), Carter, Kennedy and Wilson (1916) and Truman. So his victory ranks 19th out of 26 elections since 1908.

The dems have a chance now to prevent some of the worst excesses of Republican fraud. Obama should start by repealing the 'help America Vote' act. I imagine he's gonna need as many votes as he can get in 2012...
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
droid said:
Collected some figures to prove to a mate of mine that it wasn't the landslide (in popular votes) it should have been
Click to expand...

I think race may have played some part in that, more than voter fraud, i'm guessing.

edit: if voter fraud was the massive factor you're implying it was, why was there minimal disparity between the polls and the results?
 
D

droid

Guest
Possibly. There was some pretty detailed monitoring done, so we should have some figures soon. There were allegations the Reps were trying to steal the senate in Georgia, but the results aren't in yet.

I see its now 53/46. That bumps Obama up the league table a good bit.
 
D

droid

Guest
crackerjack said:
I think race may have played some part in that, more than voter fraud, i'm guessing.

edit: if voter fraud was the massive factor you're implying it was, why was there minimal disparity between the polls and the results?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen that data, and theres hundreds of factors which may have affected the poll, but one thought springs to mind - how would people who were refused registration or access to the ballot (which was the main thrust of fraud attempts this time) have taken part in exit polls?

I'm happy to concede that it was less of a factor than I expected, but, as I said, we should see some figures soon.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
droid said:
I haven't seen that data, and theres hundreds of factors which may have affected the poll, but one thought springs to mind - how would people who were refused registration or access to the ballot (which was the main thrust of fraud attempts this time) have taken part in exit polls?
Click to expand...

I meant the polls running up to the elections - the final RCP average was +7.5 for Obama. The state-by-state guide was pretty good too (though surprinslgy he seems to have won by more in Florida).

Btw, what's a good site for official vote tallies?
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
crackerjack said:
why was there minimal disparity between the polls and the results?
Click to expand...

2008_2008.png
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
From Judis' piece in TNR:

If you look at the two most recent realignments, they can be seen as the political superstructure's belated acknowledgement of tectonic changes that had been occurring in the country's economic base. In the case of the New Deal, it was the rise of an urban industrial order in the North; in the case of Reagan conservatism, it was the shift of industry and population from the North to the lower-wage, non-unionized suburban Sunbelt stretching from Virginia down to Florida and across to Texas and southern California. The voters in these states--many of them white evangelicals--became the foot soldiers of Reagan conservatism.

If you look at the new Democratic realignment, it reflects the shift that began decades ago toward a post-industrial economy centered in large urban-suburban metropolitan areas devoted primarily to the production of ideas and services rather than material goods. (In The Emerging Democratic Majority, Ruy Teixeira and I called these "ideopolises.") And if you look at the main groups that constitute the new Democratic majority, the states and cities where they live correspond almost exactly to those parts of the country that have been making this transition to a post-industrial economy.

The three main groups in the new Democratic majority are professionals (college-educated workers who produce ideas and services), minorities (including African-Americans, Latinos, and Asian-Americans), and women (particularly working, single, and college-educated women). These groups, which overlap in membership, are also the key components of the new post-industrial economy.​
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
if you look at the main groups that constitute the new Democratic majority, the states and cities where they live correspond almost exactly to those parts of the country that have been making this transition to a post-industrial economy.​
Ironic that in some way the Bush second term agenda -- free trade, immigration, etc -- is making the country more liberal.
 
Last edited:
Grievous Angel

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
vimothy said:
the real issue is explaining why rich educated voters display false class consciousness, i.e. vote Democrat, in rich states.
Click to expand...
It's not false class consciousness. Bush was economically very bad for the middle class. And for most of the upper class. You had to be earning north of $1.5M to benefit under Bush IIRC.
 
Grievous Angel

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
If he had gone for Hillary instead of Biden, would he have done even better?

BTW - surely the youth turnout is up because all turn out is up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top