Matt Yglesias

36 Responses to “Are Close Presidential Elections Becoming More Common?”

1. Craig Says:
   September 13th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

   I would suggest the following reasons for landslides. Parties were relatively disorganized on a national basis. Politicians had less accurate information about public opinion. Special interests which used to be able to swing large groups of voters have become weaker. Also ethnicity was once a more powerful force in our politics, but has become weaker because of mass communication.

2. right Says:
   September 13th, 2008 at 5:46 pm

   You’d have to be a bit more clear about what sort of “abstract theory” you are talking about, but my guess is the theory only really applies in a modern, national election. Before WWII it was much harder for parties to build very national platforms that encompassed local concerns. The Presidency was also much, much less important.

3. Gordon Gekko Says:
   September 13th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

   I would blame the nomination system which usually elects more radical candidates (i.e. Goldwater). Of course electability is still an issue during the nominations, it’s just usually more uncertain and therefore less relevant. However, contrary to what I learned in game theory, in an actual two party state candidates cannot freely move towards the center. There are consequences for repeatedly changing your policy. So when you start out at an extreme moving too far to the center would simply erode confidence and further weaken your chances of winning.

4. Cap and Gown Says:
   September 13th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

   The previous two commenters have already touched on this, but it bears repeating: Until the New Deal, both parties were basically non-ideological. They were based on patronage machines. The New Deal did much to wipe out machine politics by introducing federal welfare programs such as old age and unemployment insurance. The FDR coalition also caused a wipe out for the various Republican party machines. The Republicans had to remake themselves as an ideological party, a transition they completed back in the 70s. Democrats, meanwhile, still lumbered on with their northern ubran and southern machines which, ideologically, had no business being in the same party. But since the party was still not really an ideological party, but a machine based one, this coalition lasted into the 60s and 70s. It has only been in the 2000s that the Democratic Party has become ideologically coherent.

   So now we have two ideological parties facing off against each other, each with its own ethnic base, and it turns out those coalitions are just about evenly matched. Well, the Democrats, on an ideological basis, are actually larger than the Republicans, but when the Republicans stir up tribal loyalties, their ethnic base is somewhat larger. And so it goes.

5. Will Says:
   September 13th, 2008 at 7:10 pm

   The media is invested in close elections, and so elections will be close. They will puff up the underdog as much as it takes to change a blowout dynamic into a tight race dynamic, so that people will keep tuning in.

6. Mayhem Says:
   September 13th, 2008 at 7:21 pm

   I have to agree with Will. As long as close elections are profitable, there will be close elections.

7. roddy piper Says:
   September 13th, 2008 at 8:56 pm

   Gotta go with Will and Mayhem. Howard Fineman of Newsweek basically admitted it back in 2000:

   http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/26/161553/26

8. Daniel Says:
   September 13th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

   Can Matt say what theories predict that two-party elections will be close, independent of the media? I don’t understand what would lead to such close elections unless people choose their initial political preference randomly between the two choices.

9. Kiran Says:
   September 13th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

   In the ’super close’ list of elections you need to add Tilden winning the popular vote by 3% but still not becoming president.

   Those reconstruction era elections were corrupt as hell. The Nixon/Bush dominated politics of the last 60 years …

10. AlanC9 Says:
    September 13th, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    The idea is that each party, as an institution, wants to win. So they’ll adjust their “principles” as much as they need to. This should go to near-equilibrium because there’s no reason why one side should be better at this than the other.

11. Petey Says:
    September 14th, 2008 at 12:34 am

    “The idea is that each party, as an institution, wants to win. So they’ll adjust their “principles” as much as they need to. This should go to near-equilibrium”

    But, of course, this is generally false in practice.

    In a two party system, the parties are not very nimble. They are too big to be nimble. They often can’t get to where they want because of the desires of other parts of their coalitions. Think of how the Democrats want to nominate Southern and Sun Belt politicians for President, but usually end up with Northerners instead. Or think of how McCain wanted a pro-choice VP, but couldn’t afford to pick one.

    The best analogy for the parties in trying to get to the median voter is that of supertankers trying to maneuver around a slalom course. They usually don’t do it very well.

    —–

    As Gelman writes:

    Four straight close elections in the 1870s-80s, five close elections since 1960, and almost none at any other time.

    The normal state of affairs in a two party system is not that of close elections.

    We’re in an atypical period that is likely to end soon.

    Karl Rove is correct in searching for this era’s McKinley, the guy who broke out of the only equilibrium state in American Presidential politics before this one.

12. Hal Says:
    September 14th, 2008 at 1:57 am

    In a time of political calm, the normal state of things should be close elections, because each party can move toward the center on various second-tier issues. It’s when there is a major shift in the mood of the country that one party finds itself unable to move far enough to keep things close, and we see landslide elections.

    In the post-World War I period, the Democrats could not run far enough away from Wilson’s internationalism to satisfy the public; they lost three landslides in a row. In the Depression, the Republicans could not let go of their free-market, antiunion principles. This meant there was enough daylight between those principles and where the public had moved for the GOP to lose four elections in a row by large margins. By 1980, the public wanted to move to the right, and the Democrats simply couldn’t, so they lost in two landslides.

    I think sometimes these turning points take a while, and that we may be in a place similar to 1960, where the public is moving leftward, but that movement hasn’t gone very far yet. There are several key issues on which the Republicans can’t offer solutions, because any real policy would conflict with their principles. Health coverage is one, taxation is another. The question is how important those issues have become to voters.

13. Ed Says:
    September 14th, 2008 at 4:30 am

    The first landslide election was Harding’s victory over Cox in 1920, when Harding got 60% of the popular vote. Before then, the highest vote percentage any presidential candidate had received was Teddy Roosevelt’s 56% in 1904, when just about everything broke in favor of the winner. Many historians think the reason for Harding’s landslide was the backlash over Wilson taking us into World War I, though it cooincided with suffrage for women and the advent of mass media (radio) and these may have been a factor. The GOP went on to win landslides in the next two presidential elections, with a share of the popular vote almost as great as Harding’s, under successively different candidates.

    The next landslide was 1936, when FDR was reelected with 60% of the vote. Though the Democrats won five presidential elections in a row between 1932 and 1948, 1936 was the only popular vote blowout.

    During the Cold War, four presidents won reelection with 58% to 61% of the popular vote, Ike in 1956, LBJ in 1964, Nixon in 1972, and Reagan in 1984. Its hard to find much in common among these presidents and their challengers, except that they were incumbent presidents during the Cold War and hadn’t fallen flat on their face during their third term. Incumbent presidents also lost two successive elections during the 1970s, but they were unusually politically weak for different reasons. And yes, I’m gerrymandering 1948 and 1992 out of the Cold War years (pre-NATO/ Korea and post Berlin Wall) to make this point.

    I think there was a push towards consensus during the Cold War period that caused people to rally around the incumbent, absent a perception that he was just not up to the job. Two of the four Cold War elections where no incumbent was running were quite close, one was so close that who won the popular vote is still disputed among historians.

    In short, people didn’t rally around Clinton in 1996 and the Bush presidents in 1992 and 2004 like they did around incumbents during the Cold War, so post-Cold War elections have been closer on average.

14. Anthony Damiani Says:
    September 14th, 2008 at 7:32 am

    Think of how the Democrats want to nominate Southern and Sun Belt politicians for President, but usually end up with Northerners instead.

    Really, it’s a mix. Except for the Massachusetts machine (Kerry, Dukakis, Kennedy), dems haven’t picked classical “northerners”. They’ve chosen a lot from the midwest Illinois (Obama, Stevenson), Minnesota (Humphrey, Mondale) and Missouri (Truman). They’ve chosen some from the south (Carter, Clinton, Gore).

    The bias in democratic selection isn’t NORTHERN, it’s EASTERN. Aside from Johnson (Texas) McGovern (South Dakota) and William Jennings Bryan (Nebraska), no Democratic nominee has ever come from east of the Mississippi.

    The Republicans, by contrast: Reagan and Nixon(CA), Bush, W.Bush and Eisenhower (Texas), Goldwater and McCain (AZ), Dole and Landon (KS), Hoover (IA). In the last 80 years, only three Republican presidential candidates have come from east of the Missisipi (Willkie, Dewy, and Ford).

    Interestingly, the only out-of-region candidate to win a presidential election was Johnson, under what must be described as highly extenuating circumstances.

15. superdestroyer Says:
    September 14th, 2008 at 8:06 am

    Given that less than half the children in kindergarten are white, the days that the Republicans can remain competative will quickly end. The Reagan Revolution was as much about demographics than about idealology. The number of middle class private sector voters spiked about the same time that the Republicans started winning elections.

    AS the number of private sector whites decreases, the Republicans have no chance of staying relevant.

16. redstater Says:
    September 14th, 2008 at 9:28 am

    I grudgingly agree with superdestroyer. The current Republican competitiveness is fleeting. With whites rapidly becoming a minority due to the ridiculous birthrate amongst hispanics and the scourge of illegal immigration, as well as high overall rates of legal immigration, the Republican/Conservative base is shrinking fast.

    This country will become an EU nation, with its high taxes, cradle-to-grave governement welfare assistance, and a toothless military by 2025, if not earlier.

    There isn’t anything that can be done, except sit back and watch it unfold. Hispanics and Blacks and the world have been waiting for this for a long time, and they will surely get what they have wanted shortly. Hell, it could be as early as November 4th!

17. Petey Says:
    September 14th, 2008 at 10:02 am

    “Except for the Massachusetts machine (Kerry, Dukakis, Kennedy), dems haven’t picked classical “northerners” … They’ve chosen a lot from the midwest Illinois (Obama, Stevenson), Minnesota (Humphrey, Mondale) “

    I’d argue all those guys are most definitely Northerners…

18. Hector Says:
    September 14th, 2008 at 10:59 am

    Redstater,

    The birth rate among Hispanics isn’t “ridiculous”. AMong Mexican Americans it’s 50% higher than the American average- well below Mormons and Orthodox Jews. Republican states, in general, have higher rates of both births and immigration than Democratic states, and Democrats suffer for it every 10 years when they do the redistricting.

    The _Mexican_ fertility rate in Mexico is just about at replacement level (2.3), interestingly enough…..the age of fast population growth in Latin America is nearing its end. One wonders whether this will reduce the pressure to emigrate to the US….

19. JonF Says:
    September 14th, 2008 at 11:01 am

    Re: It has only been in the 2000s that the Democratic Party has become ideologically coherent.

    Neither party is ideologically coherent. It is not clear, for example, what principles unite social conservatives with free market conservatives with foreign policy Neocons. Rather, both parties are coalitions of smaller ideologically coherent groups.

    Re: By 1980, the public wanted to move to the right, and the Democrats simply couldn’t, so they lost in two landslides.

    What two landslides? 1984, yes. But neither 1980 nor 1988 qualify (by popular vote) as landslide elections.

    Re: This country will become an EU nation

    Translation: America will rejoin Western Civilization (I doubt very much though that we will be joining the EU!). Also note that America’s main body of immigrants speak European languages and are at least culturally Christian.

20. supertanker Says:
    December 5th, 2008 at 7:52 pm

    DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — In a dramatic escalation of high-seas crime, Somali pirates hijacked a Saudi supertanker loaded with crude oil hundreds of miles off the coast of East Africa — defeating the security web of warships

21. battery Says:
    January 15th, 2009 at 2:25 am

    laptop battery
    laptop batteries

22. laptop battery Says:
    February 8th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

    laptop battery

23. viagra Says:
    March 1st, 2009 at 10:53 am

    viagra
    If you have to do it, you might as well do it right

24. levitra Says:
    March 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 am

    levitraI bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!

25. Barack Obama Says:
    March 4th, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    I usually don

26. viagra Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 9:52 am

    It is the coolest site,keep so!

27. tramadol Says:
    March 17th, 2009 at 3:39 am

    Great site. Good info
    tramadol

28. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 7:41 am

    tramadol
    It is the coolest site,keep so!

29. cheap viagra Says:
    April 8th, 2009 at 4:44 am

    I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
    viagra