THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2024
What ever happened to landslides? When all the votes have been counted, how will this year's presidential election look? Ezra Klein offers this in the New York Times:
Where Does This Leave Democrats?
[...]
Donald Trump’s victory was not one of the grand landslides of American political history. As I write this, estimates suggest that [Trump] is on track for a 1.5-percentage-point margin in the popular vote. If that holds—and it may change as California is counted—it is smaller than Barack Obama’s win in 2008 or 2012, Bush’s in 2004 and Bill Clinton’s in 1992 or 1996. It may prove smaller than Hillary Clinton’s margin in 2016.
It won't be "one of the great landslides," Ezra somewhat sardonically says. Indeed, if the margin turns out to be less than two points, it won't be a landslide at all.
Here's what the Times' Nate Cohn says:
How Trump Won, Again
[...]
Despite Jan. 6, the end of Roe v. Wade and a felony conviction, Mr. Trump won a clear victory. He is on track to win all seven battleground states. He made gains in every corner of the country and with nearly every demographic group: If you look at The Times’s map of what has changed since 2020, you’ll see a sea of red.
According to our estimates, Mr. Trump is also on track to become the first Republican to win the national popular vote in 20 years.
At the same time, the scope of his victory shouldn’t be overstated. This was no landslide. A one- or two-percentage-point victory in the national popular vote with roughly 312 electoral votes is not unusual. It’s not as large as Barack Obama’s modest win in 2012, and falls far short of “change” elections like Mr. Obama’s in 2008 or Bill Clinton’s in 1992.
Cohn mentions that felony conviction, the venerated object of Blue America's cable news over the past several years. The outcome constitutes "a clear victory," but it was "no landslide," he says.
Alas! Depending on circumstances, an election can change the world without having been a landslide.
In 2016, Candidate Trump lost the nationwide vote—but that particular lack of a landslide allowed him to place three people on the Supreme Court. President Obama, who won elections by 7.2 and 4.9 points, only got to name two Justices over his eight years in office.
(In a sign of what was to come, one Justice was stolen, of course.)
What ever happened to landslides? At one time, there actually were such beings. Let's take a look at the record.
Did the modern political era start in 1960? However you answer that question, that election was very close:
Nationwide vote, 1960
Kennedy 49.7%
Nixon 49.6%
(Turnout: 63.8%)
That was no one's landslide! According to Theodore White, Kennedy learned that he had won when he arose on Wednesday morning.
Four years later, the deluge! By now, President Kennedy had been murdered. We the people said this:
Nationwide vote, 1964
Johnson 61.1%
Goldwater 38.5%
(Turnout: 62.8%)
By American norms, that was a genuine, stone-cold landslide. The others which followed were these:
Nationwide vote, 1972
Nixon: 60.7%
McGovern: 37.5%
(Turnout: 56.2%)
Nationwide vote, 1984
Reagan 58.8
Mondale 40.6
(Turnout: 55.2%)
Turnout was sliding but landslides lived on, though that was the last of the breed.
In 1988, President Bush the elder won by almost eight points. In 1992 and 1996, President Clinton won by 5.6 and 8.5 points, each time in a three-way field.
As of 1996, turnout had declined all the way to a bit less than 52%. Since then, only Obama's margin, that one time, has exceeded five points.
Will Trump end up with a two-point win? We don't know at this point. That said, a relatively slender nationwide win could still end up changing the world. In Blue America, we badly need to understand how it ever got this far—though some such belated comprehension may no longer matter.
For the record, Kennedy's very narrow win had been preceded by a landslide.
In 1952, Eisenhower beat Stevenson by almost eleven points, with a turnout of slightly better than 63%. Four years later, when they did it again, the numbers looked like this:
Nationwide vote, 1956
Eisenhower 57.4%
Stevenson 42.0%
(Turnout: 60.2%)
In 1960, Eleanor Roosevelt—FDR's widow—wanted to nominate the highly erudite Stevenson again!
Out of one of those elections, a famous story emerged. In all likelihood, the story isn't true, but the story goes like this:
Still Madly for Adlai
Like many of the best political stories, this one about Adlai Stevenson, the former two-time Democratic presidential nominee, is probably apocryphal. It was late in a long day on the campaign trail in 1956—or 1952, it varies with the telling—when a voice called out of the crowd:
“Every thinking person in America will be voting for you!”
“I’m afraid that won’t do,” Stevenson retorted. “I need a majority.”
We Blues! We've never quite stopped thinking that way. Our human wiring inspires us to truly believe that such thinking is plainly correct.
We Blues have never stopped thinking that way. In our view, it doesn't help.
ReplyDelete"...1.5-percentage-point margin in the popular vote"
Apparently Ezra Klein thinks that popular vote has something to do with presidential elections in America. Ezra Klein is an idiot.
Perhaps you have your own private definition of what constitutes a landslide election.
Delete@2:46 is most likely referring to the fact that our elections depend on the electoral college, not the popular vote. We cannot have a popular vote landslide without the candidate winning in the electoral college -- Hillary and Biden both had huge popular vote margins over Trump and Hillary lost while Biden won, because of electoral college results.
DeleteTo achieve a future landslide, Dems must show their commitment to DEI. They should preempt any primaries for 2028 and designate Kamala Harris as their nominee now. That way the party will have a clear leader and she can function as a joyful shadow President. A person who identifies as Black and a Woman shall not be denied. It is time to imagine what she can be, unburdened by what she has been.
ReplyDelete"A person who identifies as Black and a Woman shall not be denied."
DeleteIf she ain't transgendered, she's shit.
America, such a welcoming place.
DeleteNo one cares about a landslide. A victory would have been sufficient. If the Republicans get control of the House too, a lot of things we now take for granted will be in jeopardy.
DeleteStudying old election results yields no insights into our current election.
ReplyDeleteMy personal theory is that no one was helped when the Democrats split into two factions, one supporting Biden's continuation on the ticket and the other trying to push him off in favor of someone else, and winding up with Harris because she had already earned the nomination as Biden's running mate. She seems to have been unable to unite Democrats around her ticket and I believe those angry over Biden's mistreatment may have stayed home, especially when the word was that Harris was winning in the polls. Democrats seem to have underestimated the anger generated by those internal maneuverings, especially when the NY Times and billionaire donors seemed to have engineered it.
ReplyDeleteThe second split in the party was over Gaza/Israel and the approach seems to have been to ignore it. Tlaib's refusal to endorse Harris is one symptom of that rift. This was deliberately engineered by Putin to benefit Trump and it seems to have worked to some extent. I believe that group of Democrats also stayed home.
Finally, the attack on woke, although a Republican phenomenon, may have encouraged male Democrats to avoid voting for Harris with the perception that she is a DEI candidate (a ridiculous concept, but not all Democrats are immune to right wing propaganda). I think that's where racism/sexism intersected to damage Harris, despite her obvious accomplishments and talent as a politician. Some men just aren't prepared to see women as competent, which may explain some observed inroads into the Hispanic/black Democratic constituency. With more time that might have been overcome, but Harris wasn't allowed that time by the circumstances of her nomination.
Somerby is an idiot and he seems to have no capacity to deal with the discussions happening elsewhere, so he posts a few pieces of nostalgia and pretends he has ideas. It would be sad if he weren't an example of the kind of help that torpedoed Harris. I wouldn't be surprised if he made himself a medical excuse and stayed home watching Fox instead of voting. Note that he has not said he voted, and he has not said he is disappointed with the outcome. And no, calling Trump disordered is no substitute. Men like him are also why Harris lost.
Progressive scolds find racism and sexism in every nook and cranny of America. Perhaps, as they claim, Trump won because half of America is racist and sexist, but maybe, just maybe, the reality is that that half of America is just plain sick to death of the scolds.
Delete”I wouldn't be surprised if he made himself a medical excuse and stayed home watching Fox instead of voting.”
DeleteWrong. That’s because anonymices NEVER actually read the blog. They only skim for ammunition.
“We've seen that claim again and again!
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2024
The Times keeps looking away: We've just returned from a two-block hike to our voting place. Based upon the votes we cast after perhaps a three-minute wait, Harris and Walz will be elected today, along with Senator Alsobrooks.”
PP, we already know that a portion of Trump's supporters is sick of woke. That isn't anywhere near what @2:58 is discussing. Your suggestion echoes JD Vance's remarks about cat ladies who make life miserable for everyone else with their scolding. That version is misogynistic because scolds can be male too. Your lack of interest in social justice is noted. Don't try to tell anyone here you are a liberal again. You fit in fine with Trump's bros.
DeleteCecelia always believes Somerby when he lies. That may be why she is for Trump too. She probably believes all of his lies, even the obvious ones. Somerby even pretended that Harris was winning, despite living in a state with no opportunity to observe red or swing voters. He doesn't say whether he voted for Alsobrooks, who is black and female.
DeleteI don't believe Somerby voted for Harris any more than I believed him when he said he supported her and then used every opportunity to tear her down.
"Men like him are also why Harris lost."
ReplyDeleteWhite women (like you?) went for Trump. Shall we blame them, too? Or shall we just blame "men"?
yes, lots of blame to go around
DeleteBlack and Hispanic women didn’t drift toward Trump…
DeleteIt's quite possible black and hispanic women drifted to Kamala because she "looks like them," which is the definition of racism.
DeleteIt isn't racism to feel pride because a member of your own community has succeeded. It is the result of identifying with a role model or aspirational figure. David routinely confuses identity with racism. He needs to look up the definition more often. Racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group." None of that is found among women who like Kamala because she is a member of some group they identify with.
DeleteThis distortion of racism and sexism by changing their definitions is a right wing tactic.
"We Blues have never stopped thinking that way. In our view, it doesn't help. "
ReplyDeleteOh, come ON! It's a jape, a joke, a mild witticism. And it's funny! It's of a piece with Dick Tuck's famous concession speech.
You don't always have to be such a sourpuss, you know.
Of course it's a joke, but jokes draw their humor from a kernel of truth. And that kernel here is found in Stevenson's smug assumption of superiority that millions find to be grating.
DeleteStevenson comment is funny and it was nonpartisan. If he was alive to say it today, he’d be called anti-American on one side and accused of “Bothsiderism” on the other.
DeleteIntelligent people spend their whole lives being accused of smugness, a sense of superiority, elitism, etc., when they are just being themselves and trying to live their lives in a productive way. Stevenson was highly intelligent, which is obviously a handicap for running, but not for governing.
DeleteI think the problem resides with the others, not with Stevenson, when it comes to being reminded that there is such a thing as intelligence, wit, etc. We used to call the trait of blaming others for their accomplishments "jealousy". Now we blame the person who succeeds out of a misguided sense of egalitarianism. Somerby is the worst when it comes to that, with his routine tearing down of anyone with a college degree. It amounts to reverse-snobbery and I do believe it is worse on the right than on the left, but mostly because there is greater common sense on the left. Why should people tear down those who can contribute effectively to our society, just to indulge a false sense of pride among those who have accomplished the least?
"I think the problem resides with the others"
DeleteGuess what? So does every other human being.
Here is another scold that PP will ignore:
Delete"Political commentator Elie Mystal had some scathing words for America in his latest column for The Nation.
"We had a chance to stand united against fascism, authoritarianism, racism, and bigotry, but we did not," he wrote. "We had a chance to create a better world for not just ourselves but our sisters and brothers in at least some of the communities most vulnerable to unchecked white rule, but we did not. We had a chance to pass down a better, safer, and cleaner world to our children, but we did not.
"Instead, we chose Trump, J.D. Vance, and a few white South African billionaires who know a thing or two about instituting apartheid."