We're basically always gonna be stuck with the election night narrative because the media has plenty of time to fill during election coverage and talks and talks and talks about the data in front of them.....and that's when virtually everyone is paying attention as well. It's assuredly below the radar of 99% of the population that Trump's "gigantic win" is down to 1.7% less than two weeks later, but unfortunately with the way the votes are counted, election night is always gonna look better for Republicans than it actually ends up being as days pass and more Democratic votes get counted.
I'll never forget how just before midnight on election night 2012 when Bob Schieffer was musing to his CBS News colleagues how it would be possible for Obama to interpret his governing mandate "having lost the popular vote" to Mitt Romney.
Another pet peeve: I do wish the news media would consistently use election maps where state sizes are adjusted according to population. Otherwise audiences easily get the bizarre idea that the USA is a Red country тАУ or at least 80% Republican.
The Downballot gets this right! A very telling map at the top of their Tweet feed:
I watched CBS News this year, and they tilted their maps at an angle and used 3D models with vertical bars representing the population of counties. You'd see tall blue spikes surrounded by red.
Biden had a mandate from 51.3% of voting Americans. Trump does NOT have a mandate from a majority of voters. This should be underscored again and again by Democratic politicians, by pundits, and by the news media тАУ and Trump and his nominated Cabinet members should be confronted and asked what compromises they will make to ensure support from a majority of Americans.
I wonder if we ever really will? If "generational political talent with maximum tailwinds" (Obama '08) didn't do it, and none of Trump's shitshows did...
Landslides only happen with incumbent re-elections (Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, FDR). The trend in recent decades has been towards more modest re-elections (Clinton '96, Bush '04) and then actual declines (Obama '12) and now defeats for the incumbent party. No one can predict the future but I doubt that Trump's term will set up Vance for a commanding victory in 2028. Being the party in power is a net negative now, not just during midterms. Can't imagine what political environment would permit something like '64, '72, or '84 again.
Given media bubbles I think a repeat of those elections is literally impossible. Even if you had one of the candidates caught skinning a puppy alive on video, >40% of the electorate would be convinced it was a deep-fake.
In the meantime, the puppy-killer / puppy-skinner is likely to be appointed as Homeland Security Secretary. With scant attention from voters and nary a protesting voice.
Depending on your definition, I think there are several change-of-party elections that could qualify as landslides: Harding 1920, FDR 1932, Ike 1952, and Reagan 1980 among them. Tellingly, though, the last such was 44 years ago. (Obama 2008 is probably the closest we've come to that since then, and at least historically that wasn't really a landslide.)
The old definition was a 10 point plus win. Which we havenтАЩt had since 1984. 1988 was certainly an electoral landslide. Clinton in тАШ96 came close both popularly and electorally.
Yes, but MSM is using the terms decisive, landslide, mandate. No, most Americans don't want a fucking fascist dictatorship.
We're basically always gonna be stuck with the election night narrative because the media has plenty of time to fill during election coverage and talks and talks and talks about the data in front of them.....and that's when virtually everyone is paying attention as well. It's assuredly below the radar of 99% of the population that Trump's "gigantic win" is down to 1.7% less than two weeks later, but unfortunately with the way the votes are counted, election night is always gonna look better for Republicans than it actually ends up being as days pass and more Democratic votes get counted.
I'll never forget how just before midnight on election night 2012 when Bob Schieffer was musing to his CBS News colleagues how it would be possible for Obama to interpret his governing mandate "having lost the popular vote" to Mitt Romney.
Another pet peeve: I do wish the news media would consistently use election maps where state sizes are adjusted according to population. Otherwise audiences easily get the bizarre idea that the USA is a Red country тАУ or at least 80% Republican.
The Downballot gets this right! A very telling map at the top of their Tweet feed:
https://nitter.poast.org/downballotnews
I watched CBS News this year, and they tilted their maps at an angle and used 3D models with vertical bars representing the population of counties. You'd see tall blue spikes surrounded by red.
Biden had a mandate from 51.3% of voting Americans. Trump does NOT have a mandate from a majority of voters. This should be underscored again and again by Democratic politicians, by pundits, and by the news media тАУ and Trump and his nominated Cabinet members should be confronted and asked what compromises they will make to ensure support from a majority of Americans.
Arguably, we havenтАЩt had a real landslide since 1984.
I wonder if we ever really will? If "generational political talent with maximum tailwinds" (Obama '08) didn't do it, and none of Trump's shitshows did...
Landslides only happen with incumbent re-elections (Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, FDR). The trend in recent decades has been towards more modest re-elections (Clinton '96, Bush '04) and then actual declines (Obama '12) and now defeats for the incumbent party. No one can predict the future but I doubt that Trump's term will set up Vance for a commanding victory in 2028. Being the party in power is a net negative now, not just during midterms. Can't imagine what political environment would permit something like '64, '72, or '84 again.
Given media bubbles I think a repeat of those elections is literally impossible. Even if you had one of the candidates caught skinning a puppy alive on video, >40% of the electorate would be convinced it was a deep-fake.
Depending on which half of the electorate, you could even see them come out in support of it.
In the meantime, the puppy-killer / puppy-skinner is likely to be appointed as Homeland Security Secretary. With scant attention from voters and nary a protesting voice.
Depending on your definition, I think there are several change-of-party elections that could qualify as landslides: Harding 1920, FDR 1932, Ike 1952, and Reagan 1980 among them. Tellingly, though, the last such was 44 years ago. (Obama 2008 is probably the closest we've come to that since then, and at least historically that wasn't really a landslide.)
Eh unless one has an unrealistically strict definition I'd call 1988 and 2008 landslides. I'll leave 1996 arguable given the unique Perot impact.
The old definition was a 10 point plus win. Which we havenтАЩt had since 1984. 1988 was certainly an electoral landslide. Clinton in тАШ96 came close both popularly and electorally.
yeah, I was thinking around 55% popular vote
From 1920-1984, 12 of the 17 elections were popular and electoral vote landslides.
IтАЩd say тАШ88, too. 400+EVs is pretty strong. But I agree none since then.
Is the MSM (by that I mean real sources like NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ etc.) really using those terms? I've yet to see it...