Are we Americans ready for a large landslide in 2016?

[Auld Phart]

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...

You figure California is going to slide into the sea next year?

Or you figure Trump, Carson, or some other Republican will beat Biden/Sanders/etc that back?

 

[Statistikhengst]

They need to be correlated to incidents of mumps among tribes of New Guinea.

Yes we will have a landslide. President Ted Cruz's victory of socialist Bernie Sanders will be remembered among the most lopsided in history.

So, yes, you too are too stupid to actually know how to read and OP and discern some.

Do you dispute even one bit of the data?

I dispute its relevance to anything. Do you dispute that mumps incidence among New Guinea islanders will be a major consideration in the final EV tally?

Elections statistics - which also show trends over time and are also yet another indicator of the consistency of human behavior, have nothing to do with mumps in New Guinea.

I am sorry if you are just too stupid to realize this.

Maybe you can make some more cool, yet very false, Greece predictions. That seems to be more up your alley.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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...

You figure California is going to slide into the sea next year?

Or you figure Trump, Carson, or some other Republican will beat Biden/Sanders/etc that back?

Oh, I am sorry. This is not the geology forum.

 

[David_42]

They need to be correlated to incidents of mumps among tribes of New Guinea.

Yes we will have a landslide. President Ted Cruz's victory of socialist Bernie Sanders will be remembered among the most lopsided in history.

So, yes, you too are too stupid to actually know how to read and OP and discern some.

Do you dispute even one bit of the data?

I dispute its relevance to anything. Do you dispute that mumps incidence among New Guinea islanders will be a major consideration in the final EV tally?

Elections statistics - which also show trends over time and are also yet another indicator of the consistency of human behavior, have nothing to do with mumps in New Guinea.

I am sorry if you are just too stupid to realize this.

Maybe you can make some more cool, yet very false, Greece predictions. That seems to be more up your alley.

I imagine this is what Rabbi does:

 

[Auld Phart]

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...

You figure California is going to slide into the sea next year?

Or you figure Trump, Carson, or some other Republican will beat Biden/Sanders/etc that back?

Oh, I am sorry. This is not the geology forum.

You were talking about a major landslide.

that's the only one I see in the future, but somewhat later than 2016, as you predict.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I was just reading the latest PPP polls and 61% of T-Rump supporters are birthers.

If it is T-Rump versus Hillary in 2016 then yes, a landslide would be on the cards IMO.

Of course, Trump won't be the GOP nominee – 2016 is going to be a very close election.

 

[Statistikhengst]

They need to be correlated to incidents of mumps among tribes of New Guinea.

Yes we will have a landslide. President Ted Cruz's victory of socialist Bernie Sanders will be remembered among the most lopsided in history.

So, yes, you too are too stupid to actually know how to read and OP and discern some.

Do you dispute even one bit of the data?

I dispute its relevance to anything. Do you dispute that mumps incidence among New Guinea islanders will be a major consideration in the final EV tally?

Elections statistics - which also show trends over time and are also yet another indicator of the consistency of human behavior, have nothing to do with mumps in New Guinea.

I am sorry if you are just too stupid to realize this.

Maybe you can make some more cool, yet very false, Greece predictions. That seems to be more up your alley.

I imagine this is what Rabbi does:

That pic is not ugly enough.
Apparently, the fake rabid rabbit rabbi didn't really read the OP.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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...

You figure California is going to slide into the sea next year?

Or you figure Trump, Carson, or some other Republican will beat Biden/Sanders/etc that back?

Oh, I am sorry. This is not the geology forum.

You were talking about a major landslide.

that's the only one I see in the future, but somewhat later than 2016, as you predict.

Well, ok....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Simply put, this is going to be like 1988. It's the Democrats' to lose. That's why I wish the Dems would dump Hillary and go with a safer candidate.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I was just reading the latest PPP polls and 61% of T-Rump supporters are birthers.

If it is T-Rump versus Hillary in 2016 then yes, a landslide would be on the cards IMO.

Of course, Trump won't be the GOP nominee – 2016 is going to be a very close election.

Not so sure about that.

But were it to be close, then, as I wrote in the OP, alone that would set a new statistical record in our Union's electoral history.

 

[PredFan]

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...

Hey! Go sell your house, cash out your 401k, max out your credit cards, sell all of your valuables and go place your bet on the next POTUS in Las Vegas. You are so sure, how can you lose?

 

[Stephanie]

Jesus fucking Christ, did Elvis give you those stats after you and him Eiffel Towered a female Bigfoot aboard an alien spacecraft?!?

With those Four or is it five old Fogies they have running? We hardly hear anything about or from them. So, You can see why They had to go all the way back to the 1800s just to try and keep up their Democrat base and cult members spirits up. Or we can just call them what they are: Wet Dreams!!. good grief

 

[S.J.]

Simply put, this is going to be like 1988. It's the Democrats' to lose. That's why I wish the Dems would dump Hillary and go with a safer candidate.

Yeah, go with Biden. He'd be safe (just keep him away from preteen girls).

 

[David_42]

Simply put, this is going to be like 1988. It's the Democrats' to lose. That's why I wish the Dems would dump Hillary and go with a safer candidate.

Yeah, go with Biden. He'd be safe (just keep him away from preteen girls).

Still running with the anti biden bullshit, eh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

People are absolutely sick of Obama, Boehner and a Government of the Politicians, by the politicians and for the politicians that it's either sweep them out at the ballot or Torches and Pitchforks

 

[rightwinger]

Trump vs Hillary and Hillary takes 450 electoral votes

Dems will take back the House and Senate.....it will be like 2008 all over again

 

[David_42]

Trump vs Hillary and Hillary takes 450 electoral votes

Dems will take back the House and Senate.....it will be like 2008 all over again

 

[mamooth]

I think Hillary does eventually need to start playing offense. She's been playing a safe defensive strategy up to now, campaigning very little and counting on massive minority support for a win. That's good enough for the primary, probably even to squeak out a win in the general. However, to achieve a crushing nationwide victory by the Democrats, she needs to do better. She needs to get the white liberal base fired up.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ummm.........some people in this forum have the political IQ of a small soap dish.

Nobody knows about the Senate or the '16 general election but one thing that is certain is the House will be controlled by the GOP..........AT LEAST until 2020.

I'll let one of my conservative pals tell the dolts why..............

 

[Derideo_Te]

Trump vs Hillary and Hillary takes 450 electoral votes

Dems will take back the House and Senate.....it will be like 2008 all over again

I think you are being wildly optimistic about the House but yes, I agree with the other two in that match up.