The Best They Could Have Done.

The basic idea is to look at landslide losers in American Presidential elections, and see how much better they could have done under the circumstances.

For example: Al Smith in 1928.

It's pretty much an ASB for Smith to win that election. But he came relatively close to winning New York and Texas.

If we tip the balance in those states over to Smith, he wins 152 electoral votes-more than John W. Davis had four years earlier.


Any other thoughts?
 
Some quick Wikipedia-ing sees this information about "close states":

In 1964, Goldwater came close to winning Idaho and Florida. That gives him 18 extra electoral votes... meaning he still loses 468-70. Still a landslide.

In 1984, Mondale came close to winning Massachusetts and Rhode Island. That gives him 17 extra electoral votes... meaning he still loses 508-30. Still a landslide.

In 1988, Dukakis came close to winning Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Vermont, California, Missouri and New Mexico. That gives him 125 extra electoral votes... meaning he still loses 301-237 (as it's "the best they could have done", let's assume the West Virginian faithless elector votes for Dukakis and not Bentsen). A rather narrower electoral loss, but still a substantial one.


EDIT: Oh, wow. I just followed some links to the sources of the data re. the 1972 presidential election (to here) and apparently no state had a margin of 5% or lower that year.
 
Last edited:
Top