Skip to comments.Presidential Election Maps 1940 - 2000
Posted on 11/07/2004 2:51:24 PM PST by ThePythonicCow
click here to read article
I'm going to enjoy and savor it for as long
as it lasts. :>)
Having said that, the past few decades have been trending conservative much more than liberal.
The Democrats' thought you said 'we need to get a BONG'.
Well 1972 was a good year... Here's to 2008.
I agree: no complacency. However, I have to admit I was struck by how "close" the 1944 election was. During the height of WWII, when it was clear we would triumph, with the Depression defeated due to ammunitions production and the military service, etc., etc., FDR still only pulled out 53.3% of the vote. This was in the day when AP actually supported our troops and President. That shows just how remarkable W's victory was.
A very important point to make on this thread....thanks. This years JFK was nothing like the last one.
Actually changing Republican to Red was something the liberal press did, and you even heard comments to this on Fox.
It was done at the behest of the Democrats because Red=Communist and that was hitting too close to home.
I'd like to go back too. Makes more sense.
I learned something from these maps that I never realized before. Adlai Stevenson (the "intellectual") won only in the South.
My God, Nixon creamed McGovern!
And then, only because he was a Democrat.
The shameful thing about that map is California. It went Republican from 1968 to 1988...and hasn't went Repubican since.
Where did they go wrong. Heck...it even went Republican for Ford.
How do we get California back?
Did you click on the link?
I wish every year could be a 1984 year (Reagen - Mondel)
It also makes you realize just how unpopular AuH2O was that he didn't carry the Dakotas, Nebraska and Kansas, which the GOP carried in every other election.
wow what a wonderful find.. how interesting.. thanks TPC
Actually 72 looks pretty good too, geez why did Nixon think he had to do anything tricky to beat McGovern?
"I learned something from these maps that I never realized before. Adlai Stevenson (the "intellectual") won only in the South."
Me Too!!! Isn't that AMAZING!? I grew up in NYC surrounded by liberals still mourning his defeat, these maps make me wonder if they knew anyone who had even voted for him.
I also draw a conclusion from these maps that the US is basically a "republican" country, and is certainly returning to those roots. I venture the dem party has changed what it has stood for over time, but I think the Republican party, although much younger, has changed less.
Disputations/corrections welcome, of course.
Great post, very educational!
Gee do ya think Carter PO'd the southeners by the 80 election?
From 1940 to 1988 Vermont voted Rat only one time. How things change...
Yep, sure did. Sounds like Glenn Beck ... he is one of the best!
But FDR was running for a unprecedented and controversial fourth term. Even though my father's parents voted for FDR for the third and fourth term, they opposed his running for them. I recall Bob Dornan saying that his father stopped voting DemocRAT when FDR ran for his third term in 1940.
The Senate seat Jeffords holds had been continuously held by a Republican longer than any other seat in the US Senate.
MVP=Most valuable post. Thank you.
" But FDR was running for a unprecedented and controversial fourth term. Even though my father's parents voted for FDR for the third and fourth term, they opposed his running for them. I recall Bob Dornan saying that his father stopped voting DemocRAT when FDR ran for his third term in 1940."
That's true, he peaked in his bid for his second term at around 60%. His third and fourth came down dramatically (somewhere around 54% and 53%, respectively). Still, in 1940 I could understand his desire to run--wasn't Lindbergh a threat for the Presidency, who would then pursue a policy of rapprochment with Germany? And in 1944, it would have been troublesome, if not disastrous, to change a CInC in the middle of World War. Churchill and Stalin had already gotten used to dealing with FDR, after all. Plus, the briefings on the secret projects--Truman had a hard enough time, and he was eased into his role since he worked as VP for those several months until FDR died--not exactly a fresh start. I'll agree with you that the decision to run for those extra terms was highly controversial, but I think Roosevelt had good reason to do so, in addition to the thirst for power.
If you scroll to the bottom, you'll see that I credit Glenn.
Gotcha, just saw that! I wish I could listen to Glenn every morning, I enjoy him as much or even more than Rush - Glenn is hilarious!
But then again, I'm a Sick Freak, so what do I know? :o)
I'm going to have to listen to the whole gloatfest though, I missed it the other day.
1972 was an EXCELLENT year!!! ;-)
They took Glenn off of the local radio station here in the SF Bay area - KSFO 560 AM. I signed up to be an Insider at GlennBeck.com.
It was great he was on for 8 hours on election night - IT WAS HILARIOUS!
But not as good as the GLOATFEST 2004 the next day!
Vermont never had a democrat congressman until 1958 and the GOP held the Governor's office from 1856 to 1964.
What a riot! Thanks for posting this!
F--k California. Land of fruits and nuts. The conservative Anglos moved to Nevada, Arizona and Utah. That lift flaming liberal Anglos, the children of illegal aliens and the Asiatics.
A lot of the old Democrats here were conservative and weren't averse to crossing party lines to vote GOP. When they died out or moved out of state, the ones left stuck with the Democrats. That's why California keeps turning Blue almost at the same rate as Texas keeps turning Red.
The only reason FDR broke tradition was World War II was underway. Under any other circumstances, he would have retired in 1940. It was a wartime situation and Americans have never voted out a wartime President.
Flip one out of every twenty voters back to the Republicans. Last two presidential elections have gone about 55% to 45% for the Democrats. But the Recall of the Democratic governor went the other way; Davis polled only about 45% of the vote to try to retain his office.
So where are the vote going to come from? Two likely places. (1) Reclaim "Silicon Valley" (south San Francisco Bay area). This used to be fertile territory of conservative to moderate Republicans, when the dot-com were booming. The place has fallen on hard times and competition from east Asia. (2) Build a stable base in the Americans of hispanic hertiage. This group, which is largely Catholic and morally conservative, could be a goldmine for the Republicans.
"2) Build a stable base in the Americans of hispanic hertiage. This group, which is largely Catholic and morally conservative, could be a goldmine for the Republicans."
This will be much easier than the Silicon Valley route considering that Bush picked up major percentages among hispanics nationwide. That is, if they are legal residents/citizens. I don't think the illegals will ever vote Republican.
1 - many thanks for the history lesson.
hydrant marking for later
My point about the Silcon Valley area is that the econmy there is still quite depressed. The are lots of former six-figure software folks now selling shoes at Sears these days, and they are not happy about it. It is an area, geographically, that can swing back to the Republicans.
I like your opptomism. One day I picture a Republican map like the one in 1984.....landslides by the dozen.
Great history lesson! Keep up the good work!!
I personally think California is too big for a winner-take-all EC vote. I would like to see it change to some sort of proportional distribution.
And that would piss off Hillary! too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.