As talk about the 2008 ticket starts to warm up, I got to thinking about that old adage - "balance the ticket." Does it matter? What is the general pattern of the influence of geography on winning elections? Can causation, or even correlation, be established?
So, I dug into the results of all the Presidential elections since and including 1952.
Check it out.
There have been 14 elections, with 56 candidate slots, excluding third parties, since 1952:
Overall Record: Republicans 9-5 (18-10), Democrats 5-9 (10-18).
9 states have produced winning candidates at the Pres. or VP level.
5 states have winning percentages:
Arkansas 2-0, Wyoming 2-0, California 6-1, Texas 7-2, Maryland 2-1
Texas and California have produced the most candidates, 9 and 7.
The only combinations that have produced winning Dems include the South or Mid-South. Kennedy and Mondale are the only Dems outside the South or MidSouth to win, and they had South running mates.
6 states have produced winning Dems: Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, Minnesota (2 each) Georgia, and Massachusetts (1 each.) New York and California have not produced a winning Dem. Minnesota has produced the most Dem candidates with 5.
Regions with best winning percentage for Dems:
Midsouth at 4-3, South at 3-3
Regions with worst winning percentage for Dems:
Midwest at 0-2, Northeast at 1-5
Region with best winning percentage for Reps:
FarWest at 6-1, South at 5-1
Region with worst winning percentage for Reps:
NorthCentral 0-1, Southwest 0-1, Northeast 2-3
Of course all of this is occurring against the background of shifting demographics and changing media. You have the general movement of population towards the south and west, and you have three media eras: Print/Radio, Print/Radio/TV, and Print/Radio/TV/Internet.
Obviously the positions and appeal of the candidates have more to do with results than their state or region of origin. Or do they?
And what about balance? The early elections showed a clear dominance of tickets that were widely dispersed: New York-California vs. Illinois-Alabama; (the rematch of NY-CA vs IL-TN yielded the same result) Massachusetts-Texas vs. California-Massachusetts. The close-coupled Arkansas-Tennessee winning combination of Clinton-Gore was an anomaly, or an experiment that worked, or something. Over time the distance between the home states of the two candidates on the ticket has decreased.
Here are regional combinations and results:
Winning combinations – President's Region first
Northeast-FarWest 2 R
South-NorthCentral 2 D
FarWest-East 2 R
FarWest-South 2 R
MidSouth-MidSouth 2 D
South-InteriorWest 2 R
Northeast-South 1 D
South-Midwest 1 R
Losing Combinations
Midwest-South 1 D
Midwest-Midsouth 1 D
Farwest-Northeast 1 R
Southwest-Northeast 1 R
NorthCentral-Northeast 1 D
InteriorWest-East 1 D
NorthCentral-InteriorWest 1 R
South-NorthCentral 1 D
NorthCentral-Northeast 1 D
Northeast-South 1 D
South-Midwest 1 R
InteriorWest-Northeast 1 R
MidSouth-Northeast 1 D
Northeast-MidSouth 1 D
So, if this is not creating some sort of flash of insight for ya - at least it's food for thought on a Holiday.
Toss this in the In-Sink-Erator too: is it time for a ticket that is not Two White Guys to win, and how might that affect the geographical considerations?
I will draw one conclusion: embracing Southern and Mid-Southern Dems has a history of working. Talk Away!