problem with that definition (unless it means 2 party vote) is that assumes a 2 party race. What about a 3 party race? Its hard to call 1912 a “squeaker,” when Wilson won by 14%, with 42% of the vote to Roosevelt’s 27%. He had nearly an EC sweep. A win is a win. And given the lack of exit polls back in 1912, and how much closer to 50% Wilson was than either Roosevelt OR Taft, I don’t buy the “spoiler” argument.
The “two sane, intelligent parties” qualifier means that a landslide is often possible in the U.S. (Votes with a 10% difference between the candidates’ popular votes or better than 9 to 1 ratios in the electoral college have been described, (correctly or not), as “landslides” on multiple occasions in my lifetime.)
This, of course, posits that if Trump is denied the nomination, he will heave a sigh of relief that he attained the megalomaniacal publicity he really wanted without having to face any actual presidential responsibility* and will ask his supporters to vote for Kasich as opposed to deciding to break away as a third party candidate sucking a significant number of votes away from Kasich.
- I have no knowledge or opinion on why Trump has been running, but the story keeps popping up (often from former Trump staffers), that this was a publicity stunt that got away from him.
I think addie had it right at the start: landslides are relative to previous elections such that it is perceived as definitive. Hence a 53 to 47% win in a general election is likely a landslide, but Clinton’s being ahead in the popular vote 58 to 42% is him nearly taking her down. And no snark intended there - the point is how it plays against expectations, both in past races of the type and likely also even going into the contest.
This doesn’t make sense. This is like saying, “The Cowboys and Steelers are very evenly matched, therefore if the Cowboys win 30-23 it’s a blowout.”
The 1912 presidential election was a wild one, DerekMichaels. There have been a few like that, but aside from the wild for other reasons 1968 Year Of the Pig, it’s an aberration in most respects, at least as far as post-1900 elections are concerned.
1912 was odd, too, and in retrospect, probably unprecedented: it’s the only national election I can think of that had three presidents running against one another! :eek: (one a future president, one a sitting one, the other a former one).
But I tend not to view third parties as “spoilers” in presidential elections most of the time except, well, when they were, or could have been, as in “something is up”. Ross Perot messed things up in 1992 for George Bush,–but would Clinton have won anyway?–hard to say.
There’s no way that independent but still technically a Democrat, albeit blue dog genus, George Wallace, took votes away from “real Democrat” Hubert Humphrey, a strong champion of civil rights, in 1968. Wallace’s candidacy kept the election close, that’s all. Four years later Nixon buried Humphrey.
1948 is a fascinating election year, and if there’s a moral to sitting president Harry Truman’s literally surprise victory it’s that the New Deal was here to stay, and most Americans wanted a continuation of the Roosevelt tradition, not a Dixie response to Truman’s liberal (relatively speaking) stance on civil rights for blacks, for integrating the military (Truman carried all the border states, big prize Texas included, so the “defection” wasn’t that big). Nor was moderate Republican N.Y. Gov. Thomas Dewey appealing strongly to the conservative Midwest, which was “Taft country”, and where Truman was strong in states with big cities and strong “populist” and progressive tendencies.
Nowadays, it’s a whole new ball game anyway, and I doubt that history is going to be much of a guide to future elections. The American electorate has changed, our demographics are changing rapidly; and traditions,–personal, cultural, religious, ethnic–are fading fast among most “old American” groups (i.e. whites, going back two generations or more), so all bets are off. Still, 2016 is a remarkable election year, and I sense it’s going to get more remarkable still, especially as we’re still in primary season and the conventions are way down the road…:rolleyes:
John B.
The Perot-myth has been debunked. It was merely a convenient narrative for Clinton’s GOP enemies and his critics to his left as well.