Can a Democrat still win over 50% in a Presidential election?

[elperromagico]

Only three Democrats have broken the 50% mark since the Civil War: FDR, LBJ, and Carter. Tilden did it, but lost the election anyway.

Cleveland couldn't do it.
Wilson couldn't do it.
Truman couldn't do it.
Kennedy couldn't do it.
Clinton couldn't do it.

Are the days long past when a Democratic candidate for President can gain the support of over half of American voters?

[ShimokitaJer]

1. Only if the candidate can pull in LOTS of new voters

It's a myth that the American people are evenly divided. It's the Americans who vote that are divided. Only when we inspire the voters who didn't think they're votes mattered to get out to the ballot box can we ever break the illusory "deadlock."

[pmbryant]

2. Can a Repub still get more votes than a Dem in a Presidential election?

That hasn't been done in a while either.

--Peter

[elperromagico]

4. Point taken.

But here is a list of the Republican candidates who have received over 50% since the Civil War:

Grant (both times)
McKinley (both times)
T. Roosevelt
Taft
Harding
Coolidge
Hoover
Eisenhower (both times)
Nixon ('72)
Reagan (both times)
Bush '41

15 elections to our 7 (counting Tilden). Is it simply because their message is more palatable to the mobocracy?

[pmbryant]

7. Political circumstances have changed drastically over that period

Dems used to always win the South, and almost always lose in the northeast. (The only two states FDR lost in 1936 were in New England, I believe)

Obviously that is completely different now. Entire political alliances have come and gone many times over since the Civil War. I don't think comparing recent elections to any pre-1964 is of any use. And certainly pre-1932 elections are worse than useless.

:-)

--Petre

[elperromagico]

9. Uhh, the record's just as bad for post '64

Democrats over 50%:
LBJ
Carter

Republicans over 50%:
Nixon ('72)
Reagan (both times)
Bush 41

4 elections to our 2

[pmbryant]

10. I didn't say post-1964 was appropriate comparison

None of those guys are running, and the country's cirumstances are very different from what they were in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and even the 90s, so those elections aren't a reliable indicator either.

We're writing new history now.

:-)

--Peter

[mohc]

8. Things to consider

Up until Taft, the Republican party was the more liberal party. After that the liberals split off and tried to run as the Progressive party with T. Roosevelt as their nominee. Seeing that conservative southern Democrats would vote for Wilson heavily despite his relative moderation (the yellow dog Democrat effect), liberals joined the Democrats instead of folding back in with the Republicans. Pre-1932 comparisons of the parties is relatively difficult because of this. For that matter, 1932-1968 is a bit wishy-washy too, because it took that long for the Dixiecrats to figure out the liberals had pulled a fast one on them.

[boxster]

3. Clinton didn't do it only because of Perot.

Without Perot in the race, he would have pulled over 50%.

[ShimokitaJer]

5. coulda woulda shoulda

We'll never know what would have happened had Perot not been in the race, so it is meaningless to speculate on it.

[boxster]

11. Wrong. Clinton got 49.3% of the vote.

Are you saying he wouldn't have pulled 0.7% from the 8.4% that Perot received?

Try again. A 50% result would have been a lock.

[Southern Victory]

6. But the real question...

I voted for Perot and I would have voted for Bush. I'm a Texan and I'd heard way too much about Clinton to support the man. His policies are one thing but I couldn't vote for him. I just don't know if the main platform of the Party is in touch with middle America. It certainly isn't down here, and that will have to change if we want to win over 50%. We can't let FDR's one lost generation (now two) turn into three or four. Right now, I don't think its possible, especially if we keep running out Kerry-esque candidates who all have an intern in their background. Nothing loses voters in middle America like that. Its very disheartening.