I see intelligent people making this claim.
I can’t make sense of it.
Is there any seed of truth to the claim? Or is it just pure misinformation?
The claim is that Bush won in 2004 by the widest margin ever. I can’t figure out how to make this claim true, neither by looking at percentages or pure numbers of popular votes.
-FrL-
Not that I can see. Take a look at the results of the 1984 election, both the electoral votes, as well as the popular vote. The margins are clearly wider than that of the 2004 election (especially the electoral vote).
There is no way to claim that the 2004 election was decided by the widest margin; it is simply not so.
In 1984, The Reagan garnered 54,455,075 popular votes to Mondale’s 37,577,185 and was decided by 525 electoral votes to 13.
In contrast, in the 2004 election the popular vote was 59,668,261 to 56,172,264 and the electoral vote was 286 to 252.
Now, with over 59 million votes, GWB won the most popular votes of any election in U.S. history, but that is a function of an expanding electorate (more people in the country) turning out in greater numbers than has occurred recently. (The loser, Kerry, garnered almost 2,000,000 more votes than President Reagan collected in his genuine 1984 landslide.) The raw numbers may have misled some people into drawing incorrect conclusions.
I can’t think of any interpretation of “widest margin”. As Joe Random points out, 1984 was a huge margin. Here is a really good site for U.S. Presidential elections.
There is a claim that “more people voted for George Bush than any other president”. This holds true because of population increases and high voter turnout. Perhaps this is the claim that they meant?
By margin they could have been refering to the number of states won by Bush, irrelevent as it may be. I got nothing to back up this “record” though JMWC (just my wild conjecture)
Which still would not be the widest margin, as that would be 49-2, accomplished by both Nixon and Reagan. (Counting D.C. as a “state.”)
George W. Bush won by the slimmest margin of votes for an incumbent president since Woodrow Wilson.
How to say this without drifting in GD territory?
Maybe this was the subtle implication of tomndebb’s post, but it seems to me that the raw numbers aren’t doing the misleading. That is being done intentionally be the people making the statements referenced by the OP.
YThe last part there has the sentence structure of a declarative statement. You must personally know these people, and have deduced their intentions as purposely deceitful, rather than a poor understanding of numbers, or an honest mistake. Wow.
No question that the assertation in the OP is very wrong, but to declare the intentions of those making the assertation with no basis in fact is no better.
If the updated figures at CaveMike’s link are correct, the final popular vote tally was 62,041,268 (50.73% of the popular vote) to 59,028,908 (48.27%), with another 1,225,962 votes (1.00%) going to Nader, Badnarik, and other minor candidates. And according to the same site, one Minnesota elector voted for John Edwards for both Pres. and veep, making the final Presidential electoral tally 286-251-1.
Still one of the closer elections in American history by any standard.
Actually, I have not heard anyone make the “widest margin” claim, although I have heard the report that someone made the claim on various occasions. Therefore, I have no opinion as to who or why anyone would make the statement.
A Google™ search on “bush widest margin” turns up a number of hits, (most from from polls before the election), noting that the president had numbers that were “the widest margin since <~some previous election~>” in specific states and specific demographics, but no claim since the election that he won with the widest margin across the country. Without seeing an actual claim for that position and all the references appearing to be second-hand (or further distant) accounts, I am going to refrain from speculation of intent.
AskNott:
For a winning incumbent president. Obviously, some incumbent presidents have lost, which is in effect a lower, negative, margin of “victory.”
AskNott wrote
This is incorrect. (which is mildly amusing in a thread about incorrect claims of election results).
You are comparing the votes of the winning incumbent versus the votes of his next highest competitor, not versus his field.
If you count properly (votes for incumbent versus votes against incumbent), the slimmest margin is handily won by Bill Clinton, who got only 118,200 votes above the votes against him, or a measily 0.125%.
George W. Bush got a full 3.02% above his competition. Not even close.
Now, if you would’ve said that George W. Bush got the slimmest margin of electoral votes, you would’ve been correct, 53.16%.
For reference, you are correct about Woodrow Wilson’s bad performance: 6,272 votes above votes against him, a very small 0.034% (and 52.17% in the electoral college).
I’m confused. First you said Clinton had the slimmest margin w/ .125%. But you went on to say Wilson had a margin of just .034%. In both cases, you seemed to be counting the same thing–votes for a person vs. all other votes.
Did I misread you?
-FrL-
To be clear:
in the test proposed by AskNott (a win “by the slimmest margin of votes for an incumbent president” since Wilson), Wilson was the worst with 0.034%. Clinton Was a close second, with 0.125%. Next was George W. Bush with 3.02%. The next would be Roosevelt in his final run in 1944, with 7.37%.
FYI, The best was Roosevelt in his first run for re-election, with 24.39%, followed by Nixon in 1972 with 21.82%, then Reagan 1984 with 18.34%
Isn’t it spurious to add opponents’ totals together in Clinton’s case? If any of his opponents had gotten 118,201 more votes, Clinton still would have won. Our government has no provision for candidates to pool their vote totals, so adding up his losing opponents means nothing. How close was his nearest losing opponent?
Heck, if we can add up candidates, why not add the Libertarians to Bush’s side?
I think the point is specific to incumbent presidents winning re-election – the conventional wisdom being that a race featuring an incumbent president is often viewed as a referrendum on the current officeholder rather than a simple choice among equal candidates. Thus the argument runs that “almost as many people voted against him as voted for him”. It’s debateable logic, and irrelevant to determining who gets into the White House, but is one of the many ways election results get spun.
AskNott wrote
As far as government provisions, there’s only electoral votes; popular vote is completely irrelevant to the end result of who wins.
However, I – like you – find the analysis of tangential things to be very interesting.
That’s an interesting thing to measure as well. But that wasn’t what you said. Also, if you’re specifically measuring the history of incumbent’s winning, and you’re measuring popular votes, it sure seems to distortive to eliminate votes from your count without good reason.
Not sure what this means.
A potentially interesting footnote to this analysis of “popular vote victory by incumbent presidents” - where does Cleveland’s popular vote win/electoral vote loss to Benjamin Harrison rank?
If you can find a ballot from anywhere in the US where one option was “against George W. Bush,” then your wacky math might make sense. It doesn’t work that way. Every vote cast in the race was “for” a specific candidate. If you’re going to lump in all the people who didn’t vote for Bush (or, a few years ago, didn’t vote for Clinton,) you would have to count the millions of eligible voters who didn’t vote for any candidate in the race. In any kind of race (horses, cars, human runners, pigs, cockroaches,) the margin of victory is between first and second place. You don’t calculate the also-rans. If a horse wins by a nose, you don’t average in the other horses and say, “he won by fifteen feet.”