Economic Downturns And American Presidential Elections In History

With the sudden, rapid decline in the economy, caused by the CoronaVirus Pandemic, the odds of Donald Trump winning reelection in November 2020 has dramatically declined!

Economic Downturns ALWAYS lead to defeat of Presidents running for reelection, as witness the following examples:

Martin Van Buren–Panic of 1837, loses in 1840.

James Buchanan–Panic of 1857–chose not to run for reelection, but Republican party opposition won in 1860 with Abraham Lincoln.

Ulysses S. Grant–Panic of 1873, Republican successor to Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, lost by massive margin of 250,000 votes in 1876 election, but won a disputed Electoral College vote over Democrat Samuel Tilden.

Benjamin Harrison–Panic of 1893 (evident in late 1892), loses in 1892.

Herbert Hoover–Great Depression (1929 and after), loses in 1932.

Jimmy Carter–Recession of 1980, loses in 1980.

George H W Bush–Recession of 1992, loses in 1992.

John McCain–Great Recession 2008-2009, successor Republican candidate for George W. Bush, loses in 2008.

49 comments on “Economic Downturns And American Presidential Elections In History

  1. Jeffrey Moebus April 3, 2020 8:48 pm

    Thank You, Dr Feinman, for that down~n~dirty overview of the link between economic downturns and regime change in Swampland.

    An additional example is the dot.com bust of 1999-2000, which helped seal Clinton’s designated successor’s fate, eh? Also, what impact did the Panic of 1907 have on 1908?

    Do those historical facts lead to the working hypothesis that economic downturns happen for much more than simple [or even complex] economic and financial reasons? That politics has a very definite role in the ups and downs of the American economy, especially around election time?

    It would be interesting to track the activities of the Federal Reserve during those events, and see what correlation there is between elections, economic conditions, and various and sundry activities by The Fed [expansion/contraction of credit and money supply, particularly].

    Any thoughts on that? ~ jeff

  2. Jeffrey Moebus April 3, 2020 8:56 pm

    RF: “With the sudden, rapid decline in the economy, caused by the CoronaVirus Pandemic, the odds of Donald Trump winning reelection in November 2020 has dramatically declined!”

    That assumes, of course, that there will be an election, doesn’t it?

    What would You say are the odds that the election will be cancelled? Have they increased or decreased?

  3. Princess Leia April 3, 2020 10:47 pm

    We’re all stressed out over everything that’s happening and you, troll, are not helping matters any. You need to leave and never, ever come back!

    makes angry face —> >:(

  4. Jeffrey Moebus April 3, 2020 10:59 pm

    i try to imagine Star Wars’ Princess Leila saying something like that to Hans Solo, and am really, Really having a very, Very hard time.

    makes WTF face —> > 😕

  5. Former Republican April 3, 2020 11:02 pm

    She’s talking to Darth Vader, not Han Solo.

  6. Jeffrey Moebus April 3, 2020 11:10 pm

    Putting “what” back into consideration for a moment, FR: What exactly about Krushner’s statements at the press conference yesterday makes You angry? And which particular statements? And why do they make You angry?

  7. Jeffrey Moebus April 3, 2020 11:11 pm

    And Princess Leila would say to Darth Vader: “Out, Out Damn Spot!!!” ???

  8. Former Republican April 4, 2020 9:29 am

    I already explained that in my post. Kushner’s comments were callous.

  9. Rustbelt Democrat April 4, 2020 9:31 am

    I second her feelings. All the troll does is come here to fight. Everyone here is sick and tired of that and wants this blog to be peaceful again before the troll somehow found his way here.

  10. Pragmatic Progressive April 4, 2020 10:06 am

    This is what has angered all of us about what Kushner said at the press briefing –

    When asked about states’ complaints that they weren’t getting the medical supplies they needed from the federal government, Kushner said this: “The notion of the federal stockpile is that it’s supposed to be our stockpile. It’s not supposed to be states’ stockpiles that they then use.”

    That runs directly counter to how the Strategic National Stockpile is described on its own website:

    “Strategic National Stockpile is the nation’s largest supply of life-saving pharmaceuticals and medical supplies for use in a public health emergency severe enough to cause local supplies to run out. When state, local, tribal, and territorial responders request federal assistance to support their response efforts, the stockpile ensures that the right medicines and supplies get to those who need them most during an emergency.”

    That statement on the website has since been changed to match Kushner’s arrogant remarks.

  11. Former Republican April 4, 2020 10:17 am

    Trump doesn’t want to take responsibility for being unprepared, so he blames it on governors and mayors.

  12. Pragmatic Progressive April 4, 2020 10:54 am

    Former Republican – Trump has been like that his whole life.

  13. Princess Leia April 4, 2020 11:57 am

    Getting rid of the Inspector General is obviously a distraction, meant to get Drumpf’s poor handling of the virus out of the headlines.

  14. Rational Lefty April 4, 2020 2:39 pm

    Biden has announced that he is pushing ahead with his VP pick, cabinet positions.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/03/biden-talks-to-bernie-in-midst-of-vp-search-164315

    I think this is important news, I think this is the right decision for Joe biden. It will be interesting to see who Joe Biden picks for these cabinet positions. I was very happy to hear that he consulted with President Obama on who he should choose. Joe Biden was also very respectful in telling Bernie Sanders personally, that he is moving forward with picking his Vice President, and filling cabinet positions. I liked hearing that Vice President Biden realizes he needs to surround himself with people who are more knowledgeable, and smarter than he is, concerning certain cabinet positions.

    For me, I feel such relief, that hopefully soon, we will have a President in office who is smart enough to realize he is not a master of every subject, and will surround himself with smart, competent, people, who will put the needs of the American people first, not last, like Donald Trump does. Joe Biden was not a first choice for me at all, I wanted Kamala Harris, however, I am truly happy to see how well Joe Biden is navigating this terrible crisis we find ourselves in. His empathy is a huge selling point for me, as is his refreshing lack of ego. World leaders know Joe Biden already, they know who he is, what kind of man he is, and they won’t have to wonder what decisions he will make, or if they can trust his judgement. Knowing he has the ear of President Obama, his great friend, isn’t too shabby either. Considering the horrifying state of the world we find ourselves in right now, I can feel confident in Joe Biden being our President.

  15. D April 4, 2020 2:46 pm

    Given this topic, and referring to some past examples, there is something worth considering.

    Historical patterns, in most previous United States presidential elections in which an opposition-party challenger unseated an incumbent president, resulted in a national shift (from the previous election cycle) in the U.S. Popular Vote of at least +10 percentage points. (The U.S. Popular Vote has been recorded since 1824.)

    We have seen ten incumbent United States presidents unseated. Five occurred during the 20th century. All five applicable 20th-century election cycles saw that prevailing challenger nationally shift at least +10 points.

    • 1912: Democratic challenger Woodrow Wilson went from Republican incumbent William Howard Taft The 1908 Margin: Republican +8.53. The 1912 Margin: Democratic +18.65. The 1908-to-1912 National Shift: Democratic +27.18.

    • 1932 Democratic challenger Franklin Roosevelt unseated Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover. The 1928 Margin: Republican +17.43. The 1932 Margin: Democratic +17.76. The 1928-to-1932 National Shift: Democratic +35.19.

    • 1976: Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter unseated Republican incumbent Gerald Ford (never elected vice president or president). The 1972 Margin: Republican +23.15. The 1976 Margin: Democratic +2.06. The 1972-to-1976 National Shift: Democratic +25.21.

    • 1980: Republican challenger Ronald Reagan unseated Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter. (This was the only occurrence, during the 20th century, of two consecutive elections having switched the White House party. They were also the unseating of incumbent presidents.) The 1976 Margin: Democratic +2.06. The 1980 Margin: Republican +9.74. The 1976-to-1980 National Shift: Republican +11.80.

    • 1992: Democratic challenger Bill Clinton unseated Republican incumbent George Bush. The 1988 Margin: Republican +7.73. The 1992 Margin: Democratic +5.56. The 1988-to-1992 National Shift: Democratic +13.29.

    What this does to an electoral map is take at least ten states and flip them. You can figure an average net gain of +1 state with each percentage point that becomes nationally shifted in the direction of a pickup winning Republican or Democrat. (This is also true in presidential elections in which the White House party switches. Those are term-limited cycles, when incumbents are ineligible, and the nation has to elect a new president. This was applicable in more recent years such as 2000, 2008, and 2016.)

    • 1912 Democratic pickup winner Woodrow Wilson went from 1908 Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan’s 17 states to 40 states. (Included in states count, but they were not pickups, were first-time participating states New Mexico and Arizona. They were admitted into the union that very year.) A net gain of +23 states.

    • 1932 Democratic pickup winner Franklin Roosevelt went from 1928 Democratic nominee Al Smith’s 8 states to 42 states. A net gain of +34 states.

    • 1976 Democratic pickup winner Jimmy Carter went from 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern’s 1 state (plus District of Columbia) to 23 states. A net gain of +22 states.

    • 1980 Republican pickup winner Ronald Reagan went from unseated 1976 Republican incumbent and nominee Gerald Ford’s 27 states to 44 states. A net gain of +17 states.

    • 1992 Democratic pickup winner Bill Clinton went from 1988 Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis’s 10 states to 32 states. A net gain of +22 states.

    In 2016, the Democrats—after having won the two previous election cycles of 2008 and 2012 (with Barack Obama)—lost with nominee Hillary Clinton having carried 20 states (plus District of Columbia). A 2020 Democratic pickup of the presidency, with the unseating of a Republican incumbent president (specifically Donald Trump), with this historical pattern, would see that pickup winning Democrat: win the U.S. Popular Vote by at least +8 percentage points (from Clinton’s +2.09; had 2016 been a normally aligned pattern, Democrats’ margin would have been an estimated –2); experience a net gain of at least +10 percentage points in the U.S. Popular Vote (going from –2 to +8); and win in the Electoral College with the 2016 electoral map with a pickup of least +10 states to finish with at least 30 states.

  16. Former Republican April 4, 2020 2:51 pm

    Good for him. Go, Joe, go! 🙂

  17. Pragmatic Progressive April 4, 2020 6:02 pm

    Yet another day, yet another unhinged press briefing by the SOB in the White House.

  18. Princess Leia April 4, 2020 6:24 pm

    Trump is a devil. That’s why he has that ugly, red face.

  19. Ronald April 4, 2020 7:29 pm

    Jeff, there was no Federal Reserve in 1907-08, and TR worked with JP Morgan to lessen the downturn, and his anointed successor, William Howard Taft, won in 1908 over third time Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan, basically a give away election!

    Your comment about Clinton and the dotcom bust, you conveniently forget that Gore won the popular vote by 540,000, largest ever until Hillary Clinton and her 2.85 million vote lead in 2016. And we know that election in Florida was fixed, so the economy did not affect the result in 2000!

  20. Ronald April 4, 2020 7:32 pm

    Jeffrey, there is ZERO chance of not having the election on time, as we had it in the Civil War, World War II, and midterms in 1814, 1846, 1918, 1940!

  21. Ronald April 4, 2020 7:56 pm

    D, thanks again for your perceptive analysis of Presidential elections.

    I think it is guaranteed that Joe Biden will win at least 30 states, adding

    Michigan
    Wisconsin
    Pennsylvania
    Florida
    North Carolina
    Arizona
    Iowa
    Ohio
    Montana
    Missouri
    and a long shot, Texas! In the order listed, as I see it at the moment!

    If Texas can be won, there is no need for all of the above states to go Blue!

    I think, at this point, we will have a transformative election that will be long term in changes!

  22. Jeffrey Moebus April 5, 2020 8:34 am

    Maybe You are correct that the dot.com bust had little impact on the 2000 election, Professor.

    But Florida wasn’t the biggest reason Gore lost. That was the fact that he also lost the popular [and thus electoral] votes in his very own home state, Tennessee, and the home state of his party’s leader and sitting President, Arkansas. Even if You added the votes Nader got in those two states to Gore’s vote totals, he still lost them.

    Had he won either of those states, what happened in Florida would have been irrelevant.

    Has any other candidate for President ever lost his home state? Well; there was McGovern in 1972. Has any other candidate ever lost the state of his predecessor, that of a sitting President of the same party?
    And, that’s true that there was no Fed in 1907-0¬8. That didn’t happen until 1913; strenuously pushed by Wilson ~ elected in 1912 with [with lots of help from Teddy] ~ who had a national, central bank system high on his agenda: pushed primarily by Morgan and his cronies on Wall Street.
    Have You ever examined the role that the banking industry before The Fed played in those economic downturns on the eve of those pre-Fed era elections?

  23. Jeffrey Moebus April 5, 2020 8:44 am

    RF: “Jeffrey, there is ZERO chance of not having the election on time, as we had it in the Civil War, World War II, and midterms in 1814, 1846, 1918, 1940!”

    Are You actually, really comparing what was going on in this nation during the Civil War and WW II with what is going on in the US today with the COVID-19 Event?

    So ~ if there is ZERO chance of the election being cancelled ~ how about a friendly wager between gentlemen? $50? $100? More?

  24. Rustbelt Democrat April 5, 2020 9:52 am

    Gore would have been a better President than Dumbya.

  25. Ronald April 5, 2020 10:04 am

    Jeffrey, Gore’s loss of his home state and the home state of Clinton was beyond belief, no question.

    Presidential winners who lost their own state of residence include:

    James K. Polk in 1844
    Woodrow Wilson in 1916
    Richard Nixon in 1968
    Donald Trump in 2016

    Presidential winners who lost their state of birth include:

    Andrew Jackson in 1832
    William Henry Harrison in 1840
    James K. Polk in 1844
    Zachary Taylor in 1848
    Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and 1864
    George H W Bush in 1988
    George W Bush in 2000 and 2004
    Donald Trump in 2016

    As far as Presidential candidates who lost the election, and lost the state of their birth and their state of residence, one or both, the list is very long, and just covering the 20th century, here they are:

    Alton B. Parker 1904
    William Jennings Bryan 1908 (Birth)
    Theodore Roosevelt in 1912
    William Howard Taft in 1912
    James M. Cox in 1920
    John W. Davis in 1924
    Herbert Hoover in 1932
    Alf Landon in 1936
    Wendell Willkie in 1940 (Residency)
    Thomas E. Dewey in 1944
    Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956
    Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (Birth)
    George McGovern in 1972
    George H W Bush in 1992 (Birth)
    Al Gore in 2000 (Residency)
    John Kerry in 2004 (Birth)
    Mitt Romney in 2012

  26. Ronald April 5, 2020 10:06 am

    Jeffrey, I have never studied specifically the role of banks in elections, but my sense is that they did affect 1876 and 1892 and 1908.

  27. Ronald April 5, 2020 10:08 am

    I am a “gentleman”, Jeffrey, LOL, but have NEVER bet and will not start now!

    But I assure you that the election will be held on time on November 3, 2020, seven months from now! 🙂

  28. Ronald April 5, 2020 10:11 am

    Rustbelt Democrat, there is NO question that Al Gore would have made a great President, and the election of 2000 was stolen from him by the corruption of Florida, and of the Supreme Court, which should NOT have intervened!

    The whole area of the environment would have benefited in a major way with a President Al Gore, and I have always felt that September 11 would not have occurred as it did, since Gore would not have been “sleeping and relaxing” on national security, as Bush was while on “vacation” in Crawford, Texas!

    Just like Bush, Trump is always “on vacation”, very lazy and ill informed, although at least Bush was and is a basically decent human being, while Trump is a POS! 🙁

  29. D April 5, 2020 3:11 pm

    D writes,

    ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Ronald writes,

    “D, thanks again for your perceptive analysis of Presidential elections.
    I think it is guaranteed that Joe Biden will win at least 30 states, adding
    Michigan
    Wisconsin
    Pennsylvania
    Florida
    North Carolina
    Arizona
    Iowa
    Ohio
    Montana
    Missouri
    and a long shot, Texas! In the order listed, as I see it at the moment!
    If Texas can be won, there is no need for all of the above states to go Blue!
    I think, at this point, we will have a transformative election that will be long term in changes!”

    Replace Montana and Missouri with Georgia and Texas.

    My estimated order (following the Democrats’s 2016 margins and their map of 20 states, plus District of Columbia, and original 232 electoral votes):
    21. Michigan (–0.22 percentage-points margin; cumulative 248 electoral votes)
    22. Pennsylvania (–0.72; cum. 268)
    23. Wisconsin (–0.76; cum. 278—Tipping-point state)
    24. Florida (–1.19; cum. 307)
    — Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District (–2.23; cum. 308)
    25. Arizona (–3.50; cum. 319)
    26. North Carolina (–3.66; cum. 334)
    27. Georgia (–5.10; cum. 350)
    28. Iowa (–9.41; cum. 356)
    — Maine’s 2nd Congressional District (–10.28; cum. 357)
    29. Texas (–8.98; cum. 395)
    30. Ohio (–8.07; cum. 413)

    Missouri—a former bellwether state which nowadays votes like Indiana—was the 2016 Democrats’ No. 35 best state (margin of –18.51 percentage points). Montana was No. 38 (margin of –20.23 points). To flip and carry them would require a prevailing Democrat to carry at least 35 states. Average since 1992, between winning Republicans and Democrats, have been 29 (with the range 26 to 32). Those two states are less likely than the two southern states which are trending away from the Republicans and in the direction of the Democrats. (In 2016, Georgia was No. 27 and Texas No. 29 for the Democrats.)

  30. Ronald April 5, 2020 3:37 pm

    D, thanks for the correction which I have made!

    And you are correct, as I simply overlooked Georgia, and should not have done so, while Texas, I see as a long shot, but if the Democrats can win Texas, they do not actually “need” some of the other states on the list!

    Also, Missouri used to follow the national lead in in the 20th and 21st centuries, only going with the “loser” in 1956 and 2008, both times by a very small margin, but then in 2012 and 2016, the “Show Me” State went easily for Romney and Trump.

    Montana does not matter much, but I see it as the only state with a shot to go Democratic in that area of the nation, since they have had Democratic Governors, unlike Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah!

  31. D April 5, 2020 3:47 pm

    Jeffrey Moebus writes,

    “Maybe You [Ronald] are correct that the dot.com bust had little impact on the 2000 election, Professor.
    But Florida wasn’t the biggest reason Gore lost. That was the fact that he also lost the popular [and thus electoral] votes in his very own home state, Tennessee, and the home state of his party’s leader and sitting President, Arkansas. Even if You added the votes Nader got in those two states to Gore’s vote totals, he still lost them.
    Had he won either of those states, what happened in Florida would have been irrelevant.
    Has any other candidate for President ever lost his home state? Well; there was McGovern in 1972. Has any other candidate ever lost the state of his predecessor, that of a sitting President of the same party?”

    Election 2000 was a Republican pickup for George W. Bush following the two consecutive election cycles of 1992 and 1996 won by Democrat Bill Clinton.

    Since the 1950s, there has been just one occurrence of a major political party having won the presidency beyond two consecutive cycles—and it was in 1988, with Republican George Bush following the two terms, in 1980 and 1984, won by Ronald Reagan.

    Historically, a party trying to win a third consecutive cycle will see that third cycle underperform the second cycle. (1988 Bush won the U.S. Popular Vote with a margin of +7.73 percentage points and carried 40 states and 426 electoral votes, That was an underperformance from 1984 Reagan’s U.S. Popular Vote margin of +18.21 percentage points and carriage of 49 states and 525 electoral votes.) I can only think of one exception: 1904 Teddy Roosevelt, from the Republican Party, outperformed the second-term cycle and re-election of 1900 William McKinley. (Roosevelt carried just over 70 percent of the nation’s state. McKinley won in the 60s percentile range.)

    Jeffrey Moebus having mentioned 2000 Arkansas and Tennessee—the home states of then-incumbents Bill Clinton and Al Gore—being lost by the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee has been striking in the minds of many who think of some of the details of that presidential election. But, there is more to consider. Lots more.

    I have mentioned the following before. It is worth repeating.

    Since 1968, every time a presidential election saw the White House switch party occupancy, there was at least one pickup state which has since not flipped back to the party which lost it.

    • 1968 Republican pickup winner Richard Nixon won among his gains in the following states: *Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska (statewide), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

    • 1976 Democratic pickup winner Jimmy Carter won among his gains: Minnesota.

    • 1980 Republican pickup winner Ronald Reagan won among his gains: Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.

    • 1992 Democratic pickup winner Bill Clinton won among his gains: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine (statewide), Maryland, New Jersey, and Vermont.

    • 2000 Republican pickup winner George W. Bush won among his gains: **Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

    • 2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama won among his gains: Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Virginia.

    (*Alaska has carried Democratic only once, in 1964, since its first participated in 1960. **Arizona has carried Democratic only once, in 1996, since 1952. It was a bellwether from its first election in 1912 through 1956.)

    Election 2020 is pending. But, I do keep in mind that 2016 Republican pickup winner Donald Trump won as his gains the following: Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin along with Maine’s 2nd Congressional District. If Trump wins re-election, in 2020, that would leave the Democrats’ next pickup year to be 2024. Under such circumstance, which states, as 2016 Republican pickups, may not flip and carry for a 2024 Democratic presidential pickup winner? Well, my sense of this is that there would be a split. That Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin (the tipping-point state of 2016 which could be just that once again here in 2020) would be losses by the Democrats. (Iowa and Wisconsin have voted the same since 1944 except for 1976 and 2004, two years in which they have bare margins that were less than five points in spread from each other.) And the bellwethers would be Florida (as it has been, with exceptions of 1960 and 1992, since 1928), as well as Pennsylvania and Michigan (two historic, companion Rust Belt states which have carried the same in all but three elections—1932, 1940, and 1976—since the Republicans first won with Abraham Lincoln in 1860).

    So, with my mentioning bellwethers, you mentioning 2000 Al Gore failing to hold Tennessee and Arkansas should be kept in mind that they were on a streak of voting for winners. Arkansas was at it for the nine consecutive cycles of 1972 to 2004. Tennessee voted for all winners, except in 1924 and 1960, since 1912. Through 1996 Bill Clinton, Arkansas and Missouri voted for all winning Democrats. Missouri was bellwether from 1904 to 2004, making an exception in 1956 (re-elected Republican Dwight Eisenhower, who carried it in 1952, lost it in his re-match to Democratic opponent Adlai Stevenson).

    Tennessee and Arkansas—among numerous states—were also in transition.

    Tennessee—with Kentucky (since 1912, the two voted the same in all election cycles except 1920, 1924, and 1952); as well as Missouri, West Virginia (which backed all Democratic winners through Bill Clinton except 1916 re-elected Woodrow Wilson); and Arkansas and Louisiana (which last carried differently from each other in 1964)—have realigned post-1990s to the Republicans. You look at Arkansas—it had Democrats for Governor, both U.S. Senate seats, and at least three of its four U.S. House seats just after Barack Obama became the first Democratic presidential winner to not carry the state in 2008. Beginning in 2010, it made the gradual moves to replace all those Democratic-held offices with Republicans.

    (Side Note on Tennessee: In 1996, re-elected Democrat Bill Clinton won the U.S. Popular Vote by +8.51 percentage points. He carried 31 states, plus District of Columbia, and 379 electoral votes. Tennessee, as a Democratic hold, was his No. 28 best state with a margin of +2.22. Its companion state, Kentucky, also a Democratic hold, was his No. 31 best state with a bare margin of +0.96. They were bellwethers at the time. During that year’s general-election campaign, Bob Dole, the losing Republican challenger and nominee, said of Kentucky that if he wins that state he will win that election. They understandably flipped for 2000 Republican presidential pickup winner George W. Bush and, with that, realigned over to the Republican Party.)

    A 2000 Al Gore, trying to win a third cycle for the Democrats, was also facing some realignment. This is the type of realignment that happens when some select states change their voting patterns. You observe the party-pickup winning Republicans and Democrats following the likes of Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter—and that gives us some insight. Bill Clinton, a few years ago, said in this day and age he could not carry his home state Arkansas. Well, the same is true with Ronald Reagan (who also unseated an incumbent president) and his home state California.

  32. Ronald April 5, 2020 3:58 pm

    D, once again, BRILLIANT comments and analysis, which well informs all of my readers and even myself! 🙂

    Thanks so much! 🙂

  33. D April 5, 2020 6:03 pm

    Ronald writes, “Montana does not matter much, but I see it as the only state with a shot to go Democratic in that area of the nation, since they have had Democratic Governors, unlike Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah!”

    I agree.

    It is worthy to compare of Montana vs. the trio of Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah.

    It is also worth going into some details.

    Since it first voted in United States presidential elections in 1892, Montana voted differently than Idaho in 1892 and 1992; Montana voted differently than Utah in 1900, 1912, and 1992; and Montana voted differently than Wyoming in 1900, 1944, and 1992.

    I think, for the potential for Democrats, Montana is an underrated state.

    It has been willing to move—toward the Democrats—more effectively than some people may realize.

    Since 1992, the range of carried states in presidential elections have been between 26 (a 2012 re-elected Barack Obama) and 32 (a 1992 first-term elected Bill Clinton) with the average 29.

    If the Democrats were to win a presidential election with 32 carried states, coming it at Nos. 31 or 32 could include Montana.

    That list goes by the 2016 ranks. (I switched in that list the estimated rank for Iowa and Maine’s 2nd Congressional District with Ohio.) And it relates to what can play out here in 2020 (if the year becomes a Democratic pickup of the presidency).

    I figure the 2016 states ranked between Nos. 21 to 30 would also be the estimate of where they may come in in 2020. So, to go beyond 30 states, Nos. 31 and 32 would become guesses. (I lean toward, whichever their order, South Carolina and Montana. This would call for the Democrats to win the U.S. Popular Vote by +9 and +10 percentage points.)

    One can refer to the states which came in between Nos. 31 to 35, in 2016, and they were: South Carolina; Alaska; Mississippi; Utah; and Missouri. No. 36 was Indiana. (For Nos. 35 and 36, the margins spread was a very tight 0.50 percentage points. Even though they carried differently in 2008, when their margins spread was 1.16 percentage points, the two have become likeminded in presidential-voting pattern.) Rounding out the rest of the 2016 Democrats’ Top 40: Louisiana; Montana; Kansas; [Nebraska’s 1st Congressional District] and Nebraska (statewide).

    You can see, from that list, why I would not write off feasibility with Montana as I would with Wyoming (the 2016 Democrats’ No. 50 best state) and Idaho (No. 46). You can also add to that Oklahoma (No. 48) as another of those states Democrats haven’t carried since 1964 which would require winning not only 40 states but beyond 40 states.

    Not every presidential election sees states come in in the same order.

    Montana routinely underperforms for incumbent presidents. Bill Clinton was the last Democrat to carry the state. As the Democratic pickup winner, he won it as a likewise pickup in 1992. (Clinton’s margin: +2.51 percentage points.) Bob Dole flipped it back to the Republican column in 1996. (Dole’s margin: +2.88.) George W. Bush won it in 2000 by +25.08 percentage points. With re-election in 2004, Bush carried it by +20.50. So, when John McCain tried to win a third term for the Republicans, in 2008, his margin was reduced down to +2.38. The last re-elected incumbent who won Montana with a stronger margin in his second, versus his first, cycle was 1972 Richard Nixon. (Winning a Republican pickup of the presidency, Nixon’s 1968 U.S. Popular Vote margin was +0.70 percentage points. His 1972 re-election was a U.S. Popular Vote margin of +23.15. All states, with exception of Democratic challenger and nominee George McGovern’s home state South Dakota, shifted further Republican for re-electing Nixon.)

    Key to a Democratic presidential win in Montana is Cascade County (Great Falls). This is the No. 5-ranked populous county in Montana. The Top 4—Yellowstone County (Billings), Missoula (Missoula), Gallatin (Bozeman), and Flathead (Kalispell)—are divided with their preferences of the two major parties. Yellowstone and Flathead are Strong Republican. Missoula is Strong Democratic. And Gallatin, though with a long Republican streak, was flipped and carried by winning and losing Democrats Barack Obama (2008) and Hillary Clinton (2016), despite her statewide margin of –20.32 percentage points. (Both 2012 Mitt Romney and 2016 Donald Trump underperformed their margins in Gallatin County compared to past same-party presidential candidates. Gallatin, which has become Lean Democrat, is trending very encouragingly for the Democrats.) Yellowstone, which shades red, votes within five percentage points of statewide outcomes. (It has done so since 1996.) So, this makes Cascade County key.

    Cascade County votes within five points of the statewide margin. It often shades a bit bluer than the state. Look to Jon Tester, the state’s senior U.S. senator, as an example. His 2006 Democratic pickup (as he unseated the late Republican Conrad Burns) included Cascade County not only that year but also with Tester’s re-elections in 2012 and 2018. (A 2006 Tester won Montana by +0.87 percentage points and Cascade County by +0.72.) Tester won his thus far three elections all by +5 points or less. In 2016, Donald Trump won Montana by +20.23 points and Cascade County by +21.27. In 2008, while losing Republican nominee John McCain held Montana by +2.38, Democratic presidential pickup winner Barack Obama won Cascade County by +2.28—and Obama won the Democratic Leaning and state’s No. 6 populous-ranked Lewis and Clark County (Helena) by +6.51 percentage points.

    For a Democratic presidential candidate to win Montana, I estimate he/she would have to figure out Yellowstone County—having an election that reduces its Republican strength down to a single-digit margin—while getting Gallatin to further trend Democratic in carriage (it may trend faster than even I estimate); solidify Lewis and Clark County with a margin of at least +10 points; and carry Cascade County by at least +5 (but preferably with a high single-digit margin).

  34. Ronald April 5, 2020 6:29 pm

    D, you astound me with your detailed analyses again and again, and now on Montana!

    Thanks so much! 🙂

  35. Jeffrey Moebus April 6, 2020 2:12 am

    OK, Professor, since You won’t bet, i’ll bet for You.

    If there is an election on November 3, 2020, i will donate $100 to the charity, organization, or institution of Your choice.

    And if there isn’t an election, i will donate that money to the c, o, or i of my choice. Howz that sound?

  36. Ronald April 6, 2020 7:17 am

    HAHA, Jeffrey, you are hilarious! LOL

    The problem is HOW all of us who read this blog will KNOW that you actually donated $100 to a charity, organization, or institution of my or your choice!

    What kind of proof will you provide?

    In any case, since there WILL be an election, and I can choose the charity, organization, or institution, let’s make it $50 each to the two following groups:

    American Civil Liberties Union
    Southern Poverty Law Center

    And you should go on the record, as to which one or two places you will send your total of $100 if, God Forbid, there was no election, so let all of us know on here, ok?

    Thanks for your generosity, Jeffrey!

  37. Jeffrey Moebus April 6, 2020 7:29 am

    Proof? i will e-mail You the credit card receipt of the donations to the ACLU and the SPLC, and You can share it with the blog.

    As to the organizations i will donate to when the election is cancelled: the American Institute of Economic Research, the Foundation For Economic Education, and the Mises Institute.

    And i’ll -mail You the cc receipts from those donations, as well.

    Howz that sound?

  38. Ronald April 6, 2020 8:04 am

    Jeffrey, now there is another absolute reason the election must be held, lol!

    I do NOT want any funds going to, of all institutions, libertarian groups, since I think libertarianism is a disgrace, pure and simple!

    Any libertarian I have ever crossed paths with in public discourse has been a total disgrace, such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, John Stossel, Thomas Sowell, Charles and David Koch, Milton Friedman, Bob Barr and others who have no social compassion or empathy, and just want to amass unprecedented wealth with no or low taxation, to avoid contributing for the public good! 🙁

  39. Former Republican April 6, 2020 10:27 am

    Instead of betting, I’m praying that Trump will not win again.

  40. Ronald April 6, 2020 10:56 am

    I agree, Former Republican!

    To support Trump is for the nation to commit suicide, and despite the religious freaks in Christianity and Judaism, and those who fail to see that Fox New Channel and Talk Radio has shown no concern for their safety and welfare, I really believe a massive defeat is coming for Trump and Company, and time for trials and imprisonment after, for their crimes against humanity!

  41. Jeffrey Moebus April 6, 2020 11:11 am

    When You say “public discourse” with all these disgracefuls, Professor, to what are You referring? An open, public discussion and debate on issues, principles, and ideas? An exchange of comments on each other’s blog; or by private e-mail; or via responses, refutations, and rebuttals of and to articles in journals or other media? Or just reading and watching what they have said thru the media?
    And when You cavalierly denounce libertarians as having “no social compassion or empathy, and just want to amass unprecedented wealth with no or low taxation, to avoid contributing for the public good,” You betray a fundamental confusion ~ if not abject ignorance ~ of what libertarianism is and is about. And your inclusion of the Kochs and Freidman in Your list of criminals is absolute proof that You are very confused about what a libertarian is and is not. From my perspective, the only real libertarians on Your list are Sowell and Ron Paul.
    Tell You what: Let’s explore a very current issue even before the COVID-19 Event. From Your perspective as a modern [as opposed to “classical”] liberal, a progressive, and as a social democrat/democratic socialist: Is Health Care a “Human Right”?
    From my perspective as a free market, laissez-faire libertarian, i am prepared to argue that Health Care is not Human Right, but that it is a Human Need and Want; just like Water, Food, Shelter, Security, Education, Employment, Energy, Transportation, Communication, Recreation, and the many other things that make human life possible beyond the survival level.
    And as such ~ as a Need and a Want ~ Health Care [just like “Health” itself] is not a Right. It is not like the Human Rights to Life, Liberty, Property, Privacy, and The Pursuit of Happiness.
    Are You prepared to argue that it is a Right? And to provide a reasoned, rational basis for making that claim? Will it be FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights”? Or the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or something/somebody else? The Judeo-Christian Tradition, perhaps? Marx and his Acolytes? Jesse Jackson [see his recent post to Common Dreams]?
    If You [or anybody else] would prefer to go off-blog on this, my e~ is jgmoebus@gmail.com .
    So…. Are Y’All ready for “our very own “‘Pearl Harbor’ and ‘9/11′” ~ as we’ve been told by C-19 Task Force ~ as that Pandemic prepares to ramp up? Looks like Wall Street certainly is, eh?

  42. Ronald April 6, 2020 11:27 am

    Jeffrey, health care is ABSOLUTELY a human right as stated by FDR, the UN, Jesse Jackson, and others!

    And just because wealthy people do not wish to pay taxes, well, tough, we will forcibly take it from you to support people’s rights to health care, a basic common decency, or such people can go to some other nation to live out their selfish lives! 🙁

    I have no interests in debating you, as you are beyond the pale in denying the concept of health care being something government should ultimately provide for, if not by private entities!

    If you wish to debate this, go somewhere else, as I will not waste a minute of my time on dealing with someone who has clearly no concept of morality, ethics, compassion, and empathy! I hear enough of it daily from Donald Trump and right wing talk radio and Fox News Channel, and they all deserve divine retribution for the damage they have done! 🙁

  43. Jeffrey Moebus April 6, 2020 12:07 pm

    Heh….. . Well, that was an even better response than i thought i would get.
    May I use that in a paper I’m writing for a class I’m taking on “Logical Fallacies in Political Argumentation”? It is what folks in the close tactical artillery, air, and naval gunfire support business call “a target-rich environment.”
    You sound very comfortable and confident that You will continue to succeed in forcibly taking people’s money. Do You honestly think that it is only “wealthy people” who are fed up with Your ilk’s taking tax money from them? Particularly given what they have gotten in return for what You have stolen from them? Oh that’s right; those are just more of them “deplorables,” eh? And, “Vell; Vee Haf Our Vayz to deal vith them, eh, Herr Commandante?”
    But the very best part was “we will forcibly take it from you to support people’s rights to health care, a basic common decency, or such people can go to some other nation to live out their selfish lives!” Gee; the last time I heard “Love It Or Leave It!!!” was back during Nixon’s reign. Or Trump telling that to “The Squad” more recently.
    So Health Care is a “Right” because FDR, the UN, and the Reverend Jackson say it is. Well, that puts it on a par right up there with Moses and his tablets, pontifications from The Pope, and the latest fatwa from some mullah in Tehran, eh? Certainly can’t argue
    with that.
    Plus, You even want to bring “divine retribution” into play. Far further out.
    i wonder what Biden’s “brain-trust” is going to come up with to save us all; I’m sure the folks at the C-19 Task Force can hardly wait.

  44. Rustbelt Democrat April 6, 2020 12:25 pm

    The first progressive blog we sought out several years ago – Winningprogressive.org – had some really good articles critiquing libertarianism. Too bad that blog isn’t up and running anymore.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.