Trends in U.S. presidential elections since 1948

[newmarduk]

D=democratic presidential nominee R=Republican presidential nominee W=winner IP=incumbent President VP=sitting Vice-President

1948 Thomas Dewey (R) Harry Truman (D, W, IP)
1952 Ike Eisenhower (R, W) Adlei Stevenson (D)
1956 Ike eisenhower (R, W, IP) Adlei Stevenson (D)
1960 Richard Nixon (R, VP) John Kennedy (D, W)
1964 Barry Goldwater (R) Lyndon Johnson (D, W, IP)
1968 richard Nixon (R, W) Hubert Humphrey (D, VP)
1972 Richard Nixon (R, W, IP) George Mcgovern (D)
1976 Gerald Ford (R, IP) Jimmy Carter (D, W)
1980 Ronald Reagan (R, W) Jimmy Carter (D, IP)
1984 Ronald Reagan (R, W, IP) Walter Mondale (D)
1988 George Bush Sr. (R, W, VP) Michael Dukakis (D)
1992 George Bush Sr. (R, IP) Bill Clinton (D, W)
1996 Bob Dole (R) Bill Clinton (D, W, IP)
2000 George W. Bush (R, W) Al Gore (D, VP)
2004 George W. Bush (R, W, IP) John Kerry (D)
There have been 15 American presidential contests since 1948, with nine won by the GOP and six by the Democrats. 10 of these races included incumbent presidents as candidates, with five of them Democrat victories and five Republican victories. The five contests pitting a non-incumbent Democrat versus a non-incumbent Republican have seen the Republican Party win four out of five contests.
In the six contests pitting a Republican incumbent President vs. a Democratic challenger, four have been Republican victories. In the four races pitting a Democrat incumbent president vs. a Republican challenger, the Democratic Party has won three such contests.
There have been two contests pitting a Democrat Vice-President vs. a Republican challenger, both of them GOP victories. There have also been two races pittingg a Republican Vice-President vs. a Democrat challenger, with one GOP win and one Democrat win.

[newmarduk]

Since George W. Bush faces constitutional term limits, 2008 looks like to feature another presidential contest where both major parties will nominate non-incumbents, with the GOP having the historical edge.

[newmarduk]

However, the Republican Party is recent times has actually underperformed in presidential contests. In the 1968-1988 period, when the GOP won five out of six presidential contests, Republican nominees won over 400 electoral votes in four out of six contests, and over 500 electoral votes in two such contests. Republican nominees averaged 52 percent of the popular vote and Democrat nominees averaged 43 percent of the popular vote.
Since 1992, the GOP presidential nominees averaged 44 percent of the popular vote and Democratic presidential nominees 47 percent of the popular vote. Every presidential election since 1992 has seen the Republican nominee receive less than 300 electoral votes.

[newmarduk]

2008 will see a Repuublican elected 44th President of the United States, but by a close contest with the Democrat nominee.

[Kamui4356]

You can't analyze who will win an election based on who won in the past. You have to take into account the positions of the parties, and the position of the american people at the time of the election.

If there's no major change in the political landscape, a democrat will win the presidency in 2008. Unless the gop comes up with someone relatively unknown, only McCain or Giuliani has a chance of winning the general election, and neither one of them has much of a shot at the primary. (Not far enough to the right) Most serious contenders from the gop are either too far right, or have been tainted by corruption, limiting their chances in the general election.

Assuming the elections are not fixed of course. *Insert call for UN monitoring here*

[master-debater131]

I highly doubt that a Dem will win in 08. even though they have been winning the popular vote they dont hold the states. Even though alot of people dont like Iraq and the way bush is leading a lot of people still prefer the ideas of republicans over dems. which unless changes drastically would result in a 08 win for the republicans.

[Nightbat®]

Politics:

Whoever wins, We lose!

[ImperialPanda]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

Politics:

Whoever wins, We lose!

So.... so... true.

[raikage]

Originally Posted by master-debater131

I highly doubt that a Dem will win in 08. even though they have been winning the popular vote they dont hold the states. Even though alot of people dont like Iraq and the way bush is leading a lot of people still prefer the ideas of republicans over dems. which unless changes drastically would result in a 08 win for the republicans.

Depends how many people vote solely among the party line (and I'm pretty sure there's a lot on both sides).

newmarduk, I'm really not too sure where you're going with this. A lot can change in the next couple of years.

How will the immigration bill affect the scope of US politics?
South Dakota is trying to force Roe vs Wade into the Supreme Court now that John Roberts is a judge.
What's going to happen in Iraq? The US military is building permanant military bases there.

I don't think you can really point to the past 50 years as a quality indicator too much more than you can count on past records to determine if the coin will land heads or tails. Different politicians, different times.

[boneyjellyfish]

Historical trends like this are complete nonsense, and utterly meaningless. By looking at other trends, I can just as easily say that the Democrats will win this election. Take this example that I just pulled out of my ass: let's group every 20-year period from 1900 to present together and look at the relationship between the reigning party at the beginning of that period and major crises that have occured during that period.

1900-1920: Republicans go for 12 years, war in 2nd half of period.
1920-1940: Republicans go for 12 years, great depression in 2nd half of period.
1940-1960: Democrats go for 8 years, WWII begins in 1st half.
1960-1980: Democrats go for 8 years, Vietnam War conscription begins in 1st half.
1980-2000: Republicans go for 12 years, Gulf War in 2nd half.

2000-2020: Republicans go for 8 years, Iraq War in 1st half.

As you can see, whenever a major crisis occurs in the first decade of a 20-year period, the party at the beginning of that period will last for only eight years. By using this trend over the last century, we can see that the Democrats will take control in the 2008 election. The opener's post bares few differences from mine, save several mathematical formulae, formed out of thin air to confuse the reader, that creates the illusion that it may be legitimate. Both of our examples are completely meaningless.

Another example: there was a trend that stated that, should the Redskins lose their last game before an election, and an incumbent is running in the election, the incumbent will lose. Well, that trend was proven completely false in this most recent elections.

So, in conclusion, this thread is crap.

Now then, let's all ignore this hullabaloo and go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes!

[srb]

Why is the Democratic Party and Republican Party still existing?

It seems to me, as an outside observer, that the US political landscape is pretty static - you've got these two giant blocks which encompass an incredibly wide range of opinions and beliefs and then a few outsider parties. While it can work well on a local level, on a national and administrative level the conflict of ideals within the party itself doesn't seem very healthy for the party or for the people.

What do you American forum members believe? Shouldn't the Republican and Democratic parties form into smaller, more specialized parties? Reform-friendly moderates shouldn't be in the same party as hardlined conservatives, in my opinion. It also very much takes away the whole meaning of party affiliation - "I'm a Democrat", someone might say, but what does it mean when there's such a huge gap between the political views of the party members?

Politics:

Whoever wins, We lose!

Only if the politicians don't work for the people, and in that case one should either try to change it with a democratic process or a revolution.

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by srb

Why is the Democratic Party and Republican Party still existing?

It seems to me, as an outside observer, that the US political landscape is pretty static - you've got these two giant blocks which encompass an incredibly wide range of opinions and beliefs and then a few outsider parties. While it can work well on a local level, on a national and administrative level the conflict of ideals within the party itself doesn't seem very healthy for the party or for the people.

What do you American forum members believe? Shouldn't the Republican and Democratic parties form into smaller, more specialized parties? Reform-friendly moderates shouldn't be in the same party as hardlined conservatives, in my opinion. It also very much takes away the whole meaning of party affiliation - "I'm a Democrat", someone might say, but what does it mean when there's such a huge gap between the political views of the party members?

Looking at my own country there are so many parties, it's impossible to agree on
anything
and no party is big enough to get 51% so the have to join forces wirth others,
compromising some, if not manypromises ideals and projects to be able to 'rule'

Only if the politicians don't work for the people

when did you ever see a bureaucrat do that?

and in that case one should either try to change it with a democratic process or a revolution.

Democracy has no influence, if it did one would see an immediate change when a
different political stream were in power
as I mentioned in parties joining forces to get the majority of votes to rule:
they nullify any chance to make hard changes
(and after being elected usually steer the same course as the previous government
but the financial subsidies go to other 'projects')


Revolution?
that's called "terrorism" these days, and is frowned upon by society and it's citizens
as an example: if Ché Guevarra were to do the things he did today that made him famous in the past NO-ONE would consider him a hero

and it will only help another group of selfenriching vultures to power
the French or Russion revolution never benefitted "the common man"
it only made way for a different 'high society'

[hooliganj]

The saddest part is that the Republicans preach a respectable, servicable conservative platform, with a lot of ideas that I can understand, even if I don't agree with them - so it's a crying shame that so few of them practice what they preach once elected.

Originally Posted by srb

What do you American forum members believe? Shouldn't the Republican and Democratic parties form into smaller, more specialized parties?

I'm with George Washington on this one - I don't think there should be political parties at all. The two party system is a hijacking of US politics that's been going on for over 200 years. Honestly, I don't think that party affiliation should be listed on anything in or near a polling place, and the fact that a person can vote for one party or the other without even looking at the names removes the participatory aspect of voting in the first place, reducing an entire election to a battle of party rhetoric.

Sad as it is, the Colbert Report has already called the '08 election for Bill Frist, and at the moment, I'm inclined to agree with him. The republican party is already distancing itself from their lame duck for the '06 midterms, in two more years they'll have people thinking Bush was a democrat. In the meantime, the dems have noone to run. The biggest name in contention right now is Hillary Clinton, and there's no way she can win enough support to carry the primary, much less a general election.

I would love to see Russ Feingold throw his hat in, or for Wesley Clark to reemerge, but the truth is that it's almost impossible to even nominate a liberal reformer in the current climate, thanks to the primary process. Iowa, a state that won't vote for a moderate democrat even at gun point, sets the tone for the entire run. Because they go first, they have become the news story that decides who gets the contributions and support from the other 49 states, and underperforming in that contest almost decides the entire issue right away.

Yeah, the US electoral system has issues. Even the way we count the votes with the electoral college is screwy. A lot of it made sense for the time, but the Constitution was meant to be a fluid body of law. The entire process needs to be rethought by people who understand the difference between the needs of the modern voter and one from 200+ years ago. Rather than flag-burning or gay marraige, the next amendment ought to be a revamping of the way we elect leaders in this country, but I don't think anyone in Washington today has that agenda.

[Lemonhead]

Why is the Democratic Party and Republican Party still existing?

It seems to me, as an outside observer, that the US political landscape is pretty static - you've got these two giant blocks which encompass an incredibly wide range of opinions and beliefs and then a few outsider parties. While it can work well on a local level, on a national and administrative level the conflict of ideals within the party itself doesn't seem very healthy for the party or for the people.

What do you American forum members believe? Shouldn't the Republican and Democratic parties form into smaller, more specialized parties? Reform-friendly moderates shouldn't be in the same party as hardlined conservatives, in my opinion. It also very much takes away the whole meaning of party affiliation - "I'm a Democrat", someone might say, but what does it mean when there's such a huge gap between the political views of the party members?

There are more then just two partys in the U.S. they just don't get much exposure in the media but they are on the ballots. In fact in the past four presidental elections there has been a 3rd paty candidate getting media exposure (sorta) and generating some votes. Such as ross parrot in 92 and ralph nader in 2000, but they always get blamed for splitting the vote of the two major parties and all that good stuff. Example in 92 republicans blamed the independent candidate (Ross Parrot) for splitting the conservitive vote, costing them the election. More recently in 2000,(start of the "Holy Bush Empire") Green party canadate Ralph Nader was also accussed of splitting the democrat vote arguably costing the election for Al Gore and letting us all have these wonderfull past 6 years...(sarcasm)

There is something really really important that you have to remember about the american presidential election and that is we the people don't acually elect the president, we have a electoral system so the popular dosen't matter one bit. you could pull in 60% of the popular vote and still loose if you don't have the right combination of states...

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by hooliganj

The saddest part is that the Republicans preach a respectable, servicable conservative platform, with a lot of ideas that I can understand, even if I don't agree with them - so it's a crying shame that so few of them practice what they preach once elected.

Yet people still vote for them, never learning from their past history that everything they say is likely a lie... Not that the democrats are much better.

Anyway, I like your idea about not listing the parties on ballots. It wouldn't make a difference in something like the presidental election, but in many others people have no idea who the candidates are and vote based solely on party affiliation. Removing that would force people to either pick randomly, which wouldn't be any worse than what they do now, or actually learn about the candidates and make informed rational decisions.

As for srb's question as to why the democrats and republicans are still around, the answer is simple, money. Both parties have huge fundaising networks in place. Any third party would have to compete with that. If we passed actual campaign finance reform, that promised an equal share to all who run, we'd likely see a number of the smaller parties gain seats.

[Asphyxiate]

Why is the Democratic Party and Republican Party still existing?

It seems to me, as an outside observer, that the US political landscape is pretty static - you've got these two giant blocks which encompass an incredibly wide range of opinions and beliefs and then a few outsider parties. While it can work well on a local level, on a national and administrative level the conflict of ideals within the party itself doesn't seem very healthy for the party or for the people.

What do you American forum members believe? Shouldn't the Republican and Democratic parties form into smaller, more specialized parties? Reform-friendly moderates shouldn't be in the same party as hardlined conservatives, in my opinion. It also very much takes away the whole meaning of party affiliation - "I'm a Democrat", someone might say, but what does it mean when there's such a huge gap between the political views of the party members?

Personally I believe that the two parties are simply an institution implemented to guide the masses, as alot of people who vote do it purely by preset allegiances. If you pick a random person off the street and ask them what their views on a certain politician's policies are you'd most likely get a blank stare. If the current system did change and split the parties into smaller specialties, most people would probably not even vote, as they would not care enough to evaluate the platforms upon which different candidate run.

The difference between political views and party members doesn't really calculate since basically our government is a compromise, even if you were Democrat and you threatened to immigrate to Europe or somewhere else if Bush got elected, chances are you didn't actually do it. Basically most people will grumble about it but it is majority rules after all and they live with it. Small differences between polar sides of one political party is seen as something they would just 'live with' saying you are of one party just means you support the general ideal which they represent, it isn't needed that you support every last detail.

The system does need reform though, the discrepencies between the electoral college and the popular vote certainly shows that, but in the current climate where basically all major sectors of government are split down the central, it won't come anytime soon.

Unless of course, the executive branch manages to coagulate all power into the Oval Office under the guise of national security.

[Orchunter226]

If you really want to look at trends in presidential elections, look at who the presidents were; white, protestant (excluding Kennedy), males whom are rich. Makes me sad to list that (even if i am a white male protestant) because there are many good politicians who do not fit this such as Colon Powell (Hilary Clinton does not fit thank god).

I agree that the party affiliation should be removed from the ballot, it creates a system where people don't have to know who they are voting for, they just vote with the party. But, the party is not always right...

I don't like the fact that to be president you have to be rich pretty much. Campaigning and demeaning your opponent should not determine who is president.

For me, I think the '08 president will be a Democrat simply because in the current political climate people seem to be rather dissatisfied with the republicans. They are making mistakes and being revealed to be corrupt. If they keep this up there will be a dem. in 08 for sure.

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by Orchunter226

I agree that the party affiliation should be removed from the ballot, it creates a system where people don't have to know who they are voting for, they just vote with the party. But, the party is not always right...

I disagree, then it becomes a personal race in "Who can kiss A** and suck up the best"

voting for a political group's stance instead of a individual's pov is more objective
ofcourse this still is useless since parties would 'distribute' positions/departments
to their members on their own initiative

so it ends with internal a**kissing and sucking up
Where it's not about "the right man for the right job"




..the world would be alot better without politics