Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
I was actually thinking of giving this thread the title "Is this the 2nd Gilded Age?"....
I want to make a historical point.
Here are the presidential cycles since 1856 (inclusion of the GOP in national elections and the electoral college) where the winner of the NPV won with over +10% (landslide margin):
1860, 1864, 1872, 1904, 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, (1940), 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, (1980), 1984.
I bolded 1872 and 1904 because in-between, there were 7 presidential cycles in a row where the national margin was well under +10:
1872: Grant +11.80%
------------------------------------------------------
1876: Tilden +3.00% (Hayes won in the EC by 1 elector, 185/184)
1880: Garfield +0.10% (narrowest NPV win in our history)
1884: Cleveland +0.57% (looks a lot like Gore, 2000)
1888: Cleveland +0.83% (Harrison won in the EC, 233/168)
1892: Cleveland +3.01%
1896: McKinley +4.31%
1900: McKinley +6.16%
------------------------------------------------------
1904: T. Roosevelt +18.82%
Fast forward to 1984. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan easily won re-election with an impressive landslide +18.22%. Since 1988, there have now been 7 cycles in a row where the winning margin, like 1876-1900, was under +10%, and mostly well under +10:
1984: Reagan +18.22%
-----------------------------------------------------
1988: Bush 41 +7.73%
1992: Clinton +5.56%
1996: Clinton +8.52%
2000: Gore +0.52% (Bush won in the EC by 5 electors, 271/266, 2nd narrowest EC win ever)
2004: Bush 43 +2.46%
2008: Obama +7.26%
2012: Obama +3.86%
----------------------------------------------------
2016: ????
When you scratch under the surface, there are more similarities than we may realize between the so-called "Gilded age" in US electoral politics (1876-1900) and the time frame from 1988-2012:
-in both periods, there was at least one electoral backfire, where one nominee won in the NPV but lost in the EC. In the Gilded Age, it happened in both 1876 and 1888. In the currect age, it happened in 2000.
-each of those periods saw one of two closest EC wins ever, in 1876 and in 2000. And in both of those cases, it was also a so-called electoral backfire.
-in the Gilded age, the margins were from +0.1% up to about +6%, a spread of almost 6 points. From 1988 through 2012, the margins were from +0.5% to about +8.50%, a spread of 8 points.
-in both periods, 2 nominees won in the NPV at least twice: Cleveland and McKinley in the Gilded Age, and Clinton and Obama in the current age.
-in both periods, there was one "dynasty win", where a relative of a former President won election: Harrison in 1888 and Bush 43 in 2000/2004.
In other words, both periods have demonstrated a time of very polarized politics.
In 1904, Roosevelt broke the narrow-margin trend and won with almost +19. It was an absolute blowout in 1904, one of the most unsung massive landslides in our history.
So, regardless of which way 2016 goes, I suspect that 2016 will indeed be a +10 or more landslide in the NPV. If that doesn't happen, then a new statistical record would be set and we would have, for the first time ever, 8 presidential cycles in a row with an NPV margin under +10.
Looking from 1940 onwards, we saw, generally, a big landslide every 8 to 12 years.
In 2016, it will be 32 years since the last real NPV landslide win. I would say that it is about time.
And to be honest, I personally think that a massive landslide now and then, regardless who wins, is good for us, because it means an undeniable mandate for the person who wins. I also personally think that it will be the Democrat, but that's beyond the point. Were the Republican to win with a resounding landslide in 2016, I still think it would be good for us, for at least the one reason I just listed.
Discuss. Did you know about this historical fact concerning our elections? Do you think a landslide is on the way?
Please try to discuss like an adult...
I want to make a historical point.
Here are the presidential cycles since 1856 (inclusion of the GOP in national elections and the electoral college) where the winner of the NPV won with over +10% (landslide margin):
1860, 1864, 1872, 1904, 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, (1940), 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, (1980), 1984.
I bolded 1872 and 1904 because in-between, there were 7 presidential cycles in a row where the national margin was well under +10:
1872: Grant +11.80%
------------------------------------------------------
1876: Tilden +3.00% (Hayes won in the EC by 1 elector, 185/184)
1880: Garfield +0.10% (narrowest NPV win in our history)
1884: Cleveland +0.57% (looks a lot like Gore, 2000)
1888: Cleveland +0.83% (Harrison won in the EC, 233/168)
1892: Cleveland +3.01%
1896: McKinley +4.31%
1900: McKinley +6.16%
------------------------------------------------------
1904: T. Roosevelt +18.82%
Fast forward to 1984. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan easily won re-election with an impressive landslide +18.22%. Since 1988, there have now been 7 cycles in a row where the winning margin, like 1876-1900, was under +10%, and mostly well under +10:
1984: Reagan +18.22%
-----------------------------------------------------
1988: Bush 41 +7.73%
1992: Clinton +5.56%
1996: Clinton +8.52%
2000: Gore +0.52% (Bush won in the EC by 5 electors, 271/266, 2nd narrowest EC win ever)
2004: Bush 43 +2.46%
2008: Obama +7.26%
2012: Obama +3.86%
----------------------------------------------------
2016: ????
When you scratch under the surface, there are more similarities than we may realize between the so-called "Gilded age" in US electoral politics (1876-1900) and the time frame from 1988-2012:
-in both periods, there was at least one electoral backfire, where one nominee won in the NPV but lost in the EC. In the Gilded Age, it happened in both 1876 and 1888. In the currect age, it happened in 2000.
-each of those periods saw one of two closest EC wins ever, in 1876 and in 2000. And in both of those cases, it was also a so-called electoral backfire.
-in the Gilded age, the margins were from +0.1% up to about +6%, a spread of almost 6 points. From 1988 through 2012, the margins were from +0.5% to about +8.50%, a spread of 8 points.
-in both periods, 2 nominees won in the NPV at least twice: Cleveland and McKinley in the Gilded Age, and Clinton and Obama in the current age.
-in both periods, there was one "dynasty win", where a relative of a former President won election: Harrison in 1888 and Bush 43 in 2000/2004.
In other words, both periods have demonstrated a time of very polarized politics.
In 1904, Roosevelt broke the narrow-margin trend and won with almost +19. It was an absolute blowout in 1904, one of the most unsung massive landslides in our history.
So, regardless of which way 2016 goes, I suspect that 2016 will indeed be a +10 or more landslide in the NPV. If that doesn't happen, then a new statistical record would be set and we would have, for the first time ever, 8 presidential cycles in a row with an NPV margin under +10.
Looking from 1940 onwards, we saw, generally, a big landslide every 8 to 12 years.
In 2016, it will be 32 years since the last real NPV landslide win. I would say that it is about time.
And to be honest, I personally think that a massive landslide now and then, regardless who wins, is good for us, because it means an undeniable mandate for the person who wins. I also personally think that it will be the Democrat, but that's beyond the point. Were the Republican to win with a resounding landslide in 2016, I still think it would be good for us, for at least the one reason I just listed.
Discuss. Did you know about this historical fact concerning our elections? Do you think a landslide is on the way?
Please try to discuss like an adult...
Last edited:
