This election is shaping up to be a close one. Surprisingly, there have not been that many close elections in the last one hundred years. I've analyzed the closest ones below, and a couple others that bear strong resemblance to this one.
Close elections last century:
(Challenging party in itallics, winning candidate in bold)
Year | Democrat | Vote % | EV's | Republican | Vote % | EV's |
1916 | Wilson | 49.24 | 277 | Hughes | 46.11 | 254 |
1948 | Truman | 49.51 | 303 | Dewey | 45.12 | 189 |
1960 | Kennedy | 49.72 | 303 | Nixon | 49.55 | 219 |
1968 | Humphrey | 42.72 | 191 | Nixon | 43.42 | 301 |
1976 | Carter | 50.10 | 297 | Ford | 48.00 | 240 |
1980 | Carter | 41.00 | 49 | Reagan | 50.70 | 489 |
2000 | Gore | 48.38 | 266 | Bush | 47.87 | 271 |
Conclusions? In 4 out of 6 close elections, the incumbent party lost. In 3 out of 4 elections where the primary issue was an international crisis the incumbent party lost. In only ONE of the close elections were character and ideology major factors. But read on...
1916: Wilson, the incumbent, ran on a strong platform of continuing his progressive policies and
maintaining homeland security with the campaign slogan: "He kept us out of the war." He squeeked by despite losing his homestate of NJ, with a narrow win in the electoral college - which would have gone for Hughes had just 1,700 California voters picked Hughes over Wilson.
Applicable comparisons: National securtiy issues benefitted incumbent, challenger sought to scale back incumbents domestic agenda
1948: Truman, the incumbent, appeared headed for defeat. He had lost popularity due to many failures to enact his broad liberal agenda, and because of the democratic parties newfound support for civil rights. The gallup organization stopped polling a month before election day sure of Dewey's victory. Dewey was busy announcing his cabinet members while Truman campaigned non-stop against the 'do-nothing' congress, and pulled out a surprise, large victory. This race is pointed to by any incumbent trailing in the polls as the model for come from behind victory (no one has ever repeated it.)
Applicable comparisons: Incumbent had strong leadership on 'war' issue, ran against ideology of his opponent rather than the man
1960: Nixon, the vice president, ran strongly against Kennedy, a Massachusetts liberal Senator. Most of the campaign centered on Kennedy's style, and Nixon's experience. Kennedy was hampered by his being a catholic, and by his youth, but he hit Nixon hard on national security issues, citing a 'missile gap' with the USSR, and eked out a narrow victory - their famous TV debate is credited with giving Kennedy a winning edge.
Applicable comparisons: Challenger fought incumbent on his 'strong' issue, national security, and turned it to his advantage. Incumbent's credibility and confidence were contrasted unfavorably to the challenger.
1968: Humphrey, the vice president, ran as a late replacement for the democrats when LBJ refused to run, and Robert F. Kennedy was assasinated. Humphrey largely represented the status quo, although as the campaign moved on he seemed to indicate he would push for an early end to the Vietnam war. Nixon ran on law and order, and a 'secret plan' for winning the war. He appealed to the 'silent majority' of Americans, and was aided in his victory by the split of southern democrats (who supported Wallace), again over the civil rights issue.
Applicable comparisons: Challenger claimed to have a better plan for the war. Domestically the country was eager for a change in direction.
1976: Ford, having replaced Nixon (who resigned in disgrace) ran as an incumbent against the 'outsider' Jimmy Carter. The country was suffering from watergate fatigue, and Carter promised a fresh start, and struck the American people as honest. Ford was encumbered with the baggage of runaway inflation, which he seemed powerless to combat, his own percieved shallowness, and the fact he had pardoned the loathed Nixon. He was credited, however fleetingly with overseeing the end of Vietnam. Still, Carter's win was surprisingly narrow against the likeable Ford. A switch of merely 5,600 voters in Ohio from Carter to Ford coupled with a switch of 3,700 voters in Hawaii would've returned Ford to office.
Applicable comparisons: The country was desirous of a change in political tone. More Americans felt that the challenger would be more likely to deliver on issues that affected them personally.
1980: Carter was an embattled incumbent running against the outsider Reagan, whom Carter tried to portray as extreme socially, fiscally unbelievable, and all but labeled a 'warmonger' internationally. Yet, with inflation and unemployment hitting all time highs, energy shortages and the Iranian hostage crisis, the electorate had lost faith in Carter's abilities to effect change. All that was required was for Reagan to reassure voters he was worthy of the job - a task he accomplished a week before election day with his debate against Carter.
Applicable comparisons: The incumbent was presiding over a time of international crisis. The economy had been underperforming and the challenger offered a drastic change in direction to correct it.
2000: It's still too early for history to weigh fully in on the factors concerning this race. Way too much has been written about it anyway. Suffice to say that an incumbent party was swept from power during a time of peace and prosperity due to the combination of a recent scandal, the incumbent party candidate's lackluster campaign, and the challenger's agressive attacks against Gore's character.
FINAL ANALYSIS: This race seems to me to most resemble 1916 in that the incumbent is in REAL danger of losing despite strong security issues working in his favor (fear of the electorate). I would also say this election seems eerily like 1980, only with an economy that is not in as bad a shape, and the president although he has raised grave doubts about his choices has at least been seen to have addressed the crisis the country is facing. If events hold neutral, this race shows little sign of being a blowout for either party, and it is likely to be decided by a few votes in a few states. If voters are predominately afraid, Bush will win. If voters are more eager for change in direction Kerry will win. Both sentiments are there, the question is which is stronger.