*Sigh* Reminder To DU - No Democrat Has Won More Than 50% Of Popular Vote Since 1976!

[Median Democrat]

Voter turnout also has not surpassed 60%, since 1968!

50% Popular Vote. 60% Voter turnout.

Let those numbers sink in before freaking out, and thinking there is something wrong because we are not beating McCain by more. Think about it. In 1976, following the Vietnam war, the impeachment of Nixon, subsequent pardon of Nixon, and following a long recession in the early 1970s, Jimmy Carter (a southerner!) struggled to win 50.1% of the popular vote! Arguably, Carter should have destroyed Ford, but he struggled to win 50.1% of the vote.Likewise, in 1996, with the Nation enjoying unprecedented peace and prosperity, Bill Clinton should have destroyed Bob Dole, who ran a pathetic campaign, but even Bill could not breach the 50% popular vote mark.

The Democrats support choice and civil rights. This will automatically disqualify the Democrats in the minds of many people regardless of their agreement with the Democrats on other issues.

So, keep a sense of perspective, as well as appreciate the difficulty that Obama and the Democrats have overcome, and the difficulty we continue to face if we are going to win on November 4th.

We are doing fantastic by historical standards. HOWEVER, by those same standards, we will need to fight and struggle to win.

[sarahdemva]

1. clinton would have gotten 50% except for perot

if we cant get 50+ this year we never will though.

[Median Democrat]

4. I Don't Know, Too Speculative, Arguably Perot Votes Would Have Gone To GOP

Ross Perot is a former Republican. You could just as easily argue that Bill Clinton would never have won in 1992, but who knows? The fact remains that it is extremely hard for a Democrat to break the 50% barrier.

[beyurslf]

6. Clinton got 49% I believe in 1996. He would have gotten at least 1% from

Perot.

[Median Democrat]

18. Still, Bill Got Less Than 50%. Look at 1980,Reagan Got Over 50%...

Even though fellow Republican John Anderson ran against him as an independent, and Carter was the incumbent.

My point stands that it has historically been very difficult for a Democrat to break the 50% barrier.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Anderson was a very liberal Republican, his votes came mostly from Carter

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Perot was a pro-choice Republican who was to the left of Clinton on NAFTA and some other issues

Quantitatively there's no way to argue that Clinton would not have reached 50% in 1992 in a two man race. The exit polls said 1/3 of Perot's voters would've stayed home 1/3 would've gone to Clinton, 1/3 to Bush and Clinton had a huge lead during the period that it was a two man race.

Qualitatively you could argue that Perot dropping out during the Democratic National Convention gave Clinton a huge boost and that won him the election there. That being said, Clinton was running against an unpopular incumbent and would've been able to position himself as the only alternative to that incumbent and as the only agent of change if Perot hadn't been in the race.

IMO with no Perot, Clinton wins but not by a particularly wide margin.

[bushisanidiot]

32. Al Gore would have easily gotten over 50% had it not been for asswipe

Ralph Nader. suck on that.

[Catch22Dem]

5. Let's not re-write history

It's very possible that Bush 41 would have been re-elected had it not been for Perot. He siphoned off repuke votes, not Dem votes.

[liberalpragmatist]

14. Polls at the time showed Clinton crushing Bush

Perot left the race in July and didn't reenter until October. During that time, Bush's approval ratings were in the 30s and Clinton was routinely crushing him in the polls by 10-20 points.

On Election Day, exit polls showed Perot voters roughly dividing evenly between the candidates -- only Ohio, the exit polls suggested, would have flipped to Bush based on Perot voters' second choices, and even that was within the margin of error.

[Catch22Dem]

39. I humbly stand corrected

Thank you for the info.

[regnaD kciN]

15. Absolutely NOT true...

Polling at the time showed Perot was taking votes from each candidate just about equally. The "it was all from Republicans" meme was created by the G.O.P. in the aftermath of 1992 to obscure the fact that Clinton beat Bush handily...and would have done so by about the same margin had Perot not been on the ballot.

[Catch22Dem]

40. I humbly stand corrected

Thank you for the info. :)

[wyldwolf]

23. Let's not rewrite history. The facts are not on your side with your statement

[Catch22Dem]

41. I humbly stand corrected

:D

[book_worm]

24. Are you kidding? Bush had a bad economy and sucky approval ratings

'92 voters were frustrated and mad and Clinton would still have won. Perot didn't mearly siphon off repuke votes, before making a blanket statement on that I suggest some reading on the '92 election.

[Catch22Dem]

42. I humbly stand corrected

:D

[Bucky]

43. When you get corrected for this mistake, I suggest you react humbly.

And of course acceptingly.

[Honeycombe8]

28. I voted for Perot. I prob. would not have voted for Clinton if Perot had not been on the ticket.

Perot took votes away from the Republican candidate, mainly. I don't know who I would've voted for, if not Perot. But it probably wouldn't have been Clinton. I just didn't like him.

[bluestateguy]

2. Turnout did surpass 60% in 2004

http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm

We have a lot of illegal immigrants and people in jail not eligible to vote, which throws off the tunrout statistics.

[Athens30603]

3. That might not be...

...the best way to characterize our party. We have plenty of people in the electorate eligible to surpass 50% if everyone gets out to vote.

[TheKentuckian]

7. Yeah and the Republicans wandered in the Wildernes

for about as long as the nation of Israel did after leaving Egypt too but things change.

90+ percent of blacks
70+ percent of Hispanics
and just about half the whites

means that YES WE CAN bust 50%.

If we can get the kids to show up then we can do much better than that.

Stop handwringing and keep fighting!!!

Fire in the belly beats fear in the heart by miles.

Mob the polls and take them down!!!

[w4rma]

34. 75+ percent of Jews too. (nt)

[scheming daemons]

8. Yay! Another concern thread! Yay!

[4themind]

10. It's a "concern" about the "concern"

which IMO makes it good :D

[Median Democrat]

16. Concern? More Like Common Sense - People Who Think 50% Is Easy Are Deluded

Have you been reading too much Howard Fineman, and his "why isn't Obama doing better?"

This is not a concern. This is a rant against the uninformed folks who buy into the "liberal" MSM's narrative of why can't Obama close the deal? The answer is that Obama is closing the deal, but it will be close. Abortion. Gay rights. Civil rights. Being a democrat is not easy, given that there is a sizable portion of the electorate whose religious leaders command them not to vote for a Democrat.

If you want easy, vote for a Republican, because more often then not, you have the corporate media and sold-out Christian churches doing half of your campaigning for you.

[4themind]

9. I made a similar post just now

but it sunk like a rock, hope your thread fares better, IMO we shouldn't let fear get in the way of rationality and observing historical trends,

[AZBlue]

11. And no African American has ever been elected President.

This is one hell of an election year!

[KidNiki]

12. I think he might win Kansas...

Ok, I know EVERY POLL out there says otherwise but I know waaaay too many people voting for Obama! My father in-law for instance is a HUGE Conservative, and I am 99% sure he voted for Barr, he calls McCain, "McCave". I have a feeling my mother-in-law is going to go for Obama, and she voted for Bush twice. I know a TON of co-workers who all support Obama, and my parents will vote for Obama, at least my Dad will. There are almost as many Obama signs as there are McCain signs as well. We also passed a pretty big, controversial sales tax increase in August that the ultra-conservatives did not like. So I think it is possible!

[beyurslf]

20. I live in KS too. And almost every one I know is voting for Obama. Of course,

all my family and most of my friends are Dems so they all voted for Kerry and Gore and Clinton.... McCain will win the state, but not by as much as Bush did.

[instantkarma]

13. A little perspective.

1976: Carter - 297 EV, Ford - 240, Reagan - 1
1992: Clinton - 370, Bush - 168
1996: Clinton - 379, Dole - 159

Since Electoral votes are what actually count, I would say Clinton did destroy Dole in '96, and also Bush in '92.

[CJCRANE]

21. Isn't turnout predicted to be higher than 60% this time? nt

[book_worm]

22. Why every day does somebody think they have to lecture us on working harder

I think most of us are working hard and excited about the election. Certainly had Perot not run in '96 Clinton would have won more than 50% since he was at 49%. It's probable in a change election like '92 that Clinton would have won a majority of votes w/o Perot. We had 1980 which was a change election as well which broke for the GOP, and that is how I think this election will go, except break big time for the Democrats. Just let people enjoy the day and if they are excited and want to say "We are going to win!" let them. Nobody on DU is taking things for granted.

[yardwork]

25. Only one Democrat has won the White House since 1976.

[wyldwolf]

26. two - and three terms

[yardwork]

30. One Democrat has won since 1976. Carter won in 1976.

[wyldwolf]

31. Two Democrats have won since 1976. Carter (once) Clinton twice

C'mon. I'd LOVE to have another "real Democrat" debate. I have all morning.

[4themind]

36. The poster may have meant

Since ,as defined as 'During the period subsequent to' 1976, only one democrat has "won" an election to become president (although he won twice like you said) and that was Bill Clinton. Carter wouldn't be included in that definition of "since", err...since he was voted in during 1976. But the poster will have to chime in on that, lol

[Orsino]

27. Republicans run on macho swagger.

Dems run on the promise of hard work.

In high school, who was more popular--the jock who did keg stands, or the nerd who cleaned up after the party?

Our platform is a harder sell.

[texasleo]

29. Thank you. This is very good.

:)

[struggle4progress]

33. Blister them fingers jingling them fones. Wear down that leather knockin them doors.

[Lochloosa]

35. I don't care if Obama gets 50% or not

I'll settle for 270.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

37. Silly, silly stat. Clinton would have won at least 53% in 1996

Clinton got 49.9% in a three way race. The idea that 100% of Perot voters would have voted for Dole is comical.

This stat should be retired.

[Median Democrat]

38. The Popular Vote Is the Most Similar Stat To Polling Results

I know a lot of folks say that the popular vote is irrelevant on the one hand, but they obssess about daily fluctuations in tracking polls, on the other. This is why I am noting the history of the popular vote, and the fact that Democrats have not broken past the 50% barrier in over 30 years. Yes, we can rationalize why Bill Clinton did not surpass 50%, but the fact remains that he did not. More than 50% of people voted against Bill Clinton despite his success in 1996.

Obama, and any Democrat for that matter, faces serious obstacles, thus we should not take for granted that Obama should surpass 50%. This is a historical threshold that is extremely hard for Democrats to crack.