Compare/contrast American Presidential elections

[pbrower2a]

Sometimes a contrast between sets of elections shows more about the states than about changes in the Parties and intervening events. America went through the historical wringer between 1928 and 1952.

Herbert Hoover 1928 (promise of a New Era of unprecedented and lasting prosperity) vs. Dwight Eisenhower 1950's who promised much the same as Hoover did in 1928... but delivered.

Al Smith got clobbered badly, and the slogan "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" that the Republican Party used against him showed what Smith won -- heavily-Catholic Massachusetts and Rhode Island, some former Confederate States, and all states in which alcoholic beverages were legal (on the latter, none -- Prohibition was the law and a joke in 1928).  



Hoover 1928, Eisenhower twice -- blue
Smith 1928, Eisenhower twice -- white

Hoover 1928, Stevenson twice -- yellow
Hoover 1928, Eisenhower once -- light green
Smith 1928, Stevenson twice -- red

Ike must not have had a problem with the Catholic vote.

Other than that, the correspondences after 24 to 28 years are eerie. That is after the worst economic meltdown in American history, the pervasive creation of new American institutions to meet the economic disaster, the biggest war in American history, and successful Presidencies of the other Party over twenty years. Stevenson won 'back' the Southern racists who deserted Harry Truman in 1948 but lost much more in return. If Carter to Obama is the 2T/3T cusp to the 3T/4T cusp, then Hoover to Eisenhower is from the free-wheeling phase of a 3T to a comparatively-placid 1T.

Partisan identity within and among states can be stable when Democrats win two close elections 16 years apart. As in the previous map, a mass of states in blue and red shows partisan stability even if the politicians and times are different, as between the prospect of a New Era (3T falling apart but hardly anyone knowing it vs. an entrenched 1T) or the nearly-euphoric end of a 1T against the near-end of an Awakening Era.

Kennedy 1960. Carter 1976. Two close elections sixteen years apart.



Kennedy and Carter -- red
not voting -- Carter -- gray (DC)
uncommitted and Carter -- orange (Alabama 5 for Kennedy, 6 for Byrd in electoral votes)
Kennedy and Ford -- green
Nixon and Carter -- yellow
not voting -- Carter -- gray (DC)

Alabama is split Kennedy/Byrd.

Possible interpretation: Kennedy largely put the New Deal Coalition back for the Democrats and Carter in 1976 was the Last Hurrah of the New Deal Coalition.

---

We can also draw conclusions of the last six Presidential elections (1992 to 2012).




deep blue -- all elections for the Republican
medium blue --  all but one election for the Republican (but once for Obama)
pale blue -- all but once for the Republicans (but once for Clinton)
deep green -- Clinton twice, but Obama losing by more than 10% twice
medium green -- Clinton twice, Obama barely losing once
yellow -- Clinton once, Obama twice
tan -- Clinton never, Obama twice
medium red -- all but one election for the Democrat
deep red -- all elections for the Democrat

white -- always went for the winner  (Clinton twice, George W. Bush twice, Obama)

When the state last voted for the losing nominee:



2012
2004
2000
1996
1992
1976

Ohio hasn't voted for the loser of the Presidential election since 1960.

Even more telling: the last time a State voted against a winner who got 350 or more electoral votes. That is partisanship at the time -- voting for electoral failures!



2008 *
1996
1992
1988*
1980
1944
1932

WV voted against George H W Bush in 1988 and against Barack Obama in 2008.

---

Independent candidate John Anderson in the 1980 election got only 6.61% of the vote, but with the arguable exception of Ross Perot (who seemed to pick off voters largely from the center-right)  he was the only third-party or independent Presidential nominee to get votes out of the political center since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. Anderson did not win any states at all in 1980; he did not even come close. For people who thought Jimmy Carter simply a failure and Reagan too strident for their tastes, he seemed a good choice.

His vote (in green) largely seems like a portent of the part of the electorate that could have voted for Republicans in landslides as in 1972 and 1984, but perhaps vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012. The connection does not seem so obvious in 1992 or 1996. In the first map I ignore the votes for Carter and Reagan, which represent core loyalties and an assessment of who had failed and who promised better.




John Anderson electoral amount

under 2.5%.....20% saturation
2.5-4.5%.........30% saturation
4.5-6.61%.......40% saturation

6.61% -- national average
6.61%-8.5%....50% saturation
8.5%-10%.......60% saturation
10%-12.5%.....70% saturation
12.5% or more  80% saturation

Below, intensity relates how well Anderson did in 1980. Red is for a Democratic win and blue is for a Democratic win (as was the norm in the 1980 and in the mapping tool that I have adopted from some other website):

Now... how the states went in 1992, the first Democratic win for President since 1976:



1996:



Now... how the states went in 2000, the closest Presidential election in over 100 years Red - Democratic, blue -- Republican. Intensity shows how Anderson did:



2004, in another close election:

---

Now 2008. One of the observations of Anderson voters was that they were decidedly above average in formal education. Until 2004 the common logic was that the more educated one was the more likely one was to vote Republican. The connection between formal education and Republican voting was no longer valid  in 2008 and 2012.  



(NE-02 of course went for Obama contrary to Nebraska as a whole)

2012:




Note the paucity of states in pale-red or dark blue colors both times. (Again, red is Democratic and blue is Democratic as used to be the convention. Intensity shows how the states went for Anderson in 1980. As a general rule, where Anderson did best in 1980, so did Obama in 2008 and 2012.

---

Now, Eisenhower vs. Clinton. Clinton's wins in 1992 and 1996 aren't far from the results for Obama in 2008. But do Clinton wins resemble Eisenhower wins? Not as well.

Here is Eisenhower vs. Obama again:



gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Eisenhower twice, Clinton once
yellow -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
red-- Stevenson twice, Clinton twice
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

(This site uses the very old red for Democrats and blue for Republicans... I do not make waves about that in that website).

Now, Eisnhower and Clinton:




gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Clinton twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Eisenhower twice, Clinton once
yellow-- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Clinton twice
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Clinton never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Clinton once
red -- went Democratic in all four elections (Stevenson twice, Clinton twice).

---

100 years apart, overlay between William Howard Taft and Barack Obama, 1908/2008.

Taft ® 51.6/321 - Bryan (D) 43.0/162 - Debs (S) 2.8/0
Obama (D) 52.9/365- McCain ® 45.6/173

Similar percentages of the electoral vote for the winners. a hundred years later, Obama was winning much the same states as Taft, although their Parties were winning nearly the opposite sets of states.



Taft/ McCain blue
Taft/Obama yellow
Bryan/Obama red
Bryan/McCain green

Bryan won all of the former secessionist states, Colorado, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Nevada.  Bryan won seven states by 9% or less; Taft won six states by 9% or less.  Other states were blow-outs.

Clearly different in 1908 from a century later: Alaska, Arizona, Dee Cee,  Hawaii, and New Mexico weren't voting. There was no television or even radio in 1908. Above all, several Southern states did not have free and fair elections (blacks were effectively barred from voting).

Now what if the polarization is on the side of the winner?

FDR (D) 53.4/432 - Dewey ® 45.9/99  
Obama (D) 52.9/365- McCain ® 45.6/173

Arizona and New Mexico were voting this time; radio (but not TV) was very much a part of American life. America was well unified in a war going very well in 1944.  Alaska and Hawaii, let alone the District of Columbia, would not vote in 1944. Several states in the South still had no free elections.



FDR/Obama
FDR/McCain
Dewey/McCain
Dewey/Obama

FDR lost only four states by 14% or more, and only three by 5% to 9% (none between 9% to 14%).  His other losses were by 5% or less. He won the other 41 states at the time. Nine were by 5% or less, and another five by 5% to 9%. He won the 22 others by 9% or more.

It is enough to know that Barack Obama won enough states to win with the tipping-point state as Iowa, which he won by 9.54%. He had Reagan-like margins in his wins but Mondale-like losses in many states that he lost. Obama lost fourteen states by 14% or more.

America was terribly rifted in 2008. The 1944 election is a ratification of the successes of one of the most effective Presidents ever. People may disagree on who the greatest, second-greatest, and third-greatest Presidents were, but in some order those are Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. The 2008 election followed a President whose sole success was in getting re-elected.

Also posted here. Definitely not plagiarized.

I do much posting here on American elections.