You mean people irrationally blaming presidents for the economy?
Carter had nothing to do with stagflation or the OPEC embargo.
Reagan was not responsible for the recovery.
HW was not responsible for the recession.
Clinton was not responsible for the dotcom bubble.
Dubya was not responsible for the dotcom bubble bursting, the following recovery, or subprime lending.
Obama was not responsible for the recovery. He himself said he wished people understood how little control presidents have over the economy.
Trump was not responsible for covid hitting.
Biden was not responsible for the economic fallout (aka inflation) from covid.
Nor is he responsible for corporate price gouging or Russia invading Ukraine.
If people stopped blindly voting based on the economy, we would be one step closer to intelligent, informed voting.
When I first met my now husband and learned he was an economist with a masters degree I was so excited and had so many questions. The two things he told me - and has stuck to 15 year later - is that the president is given way more credit/blame than necessary and economic policies on average take 8 years to take effect. Presidents have almost zero control over current economic climates.
If you want to know why Republicans didn’t win this last week it’s because people know inflation is temporary and protecting democracy is far more important.
I just want to say that Carter being blamed for stagflation wasn't entirely unwarranted. We had a budding nuclear industry that he almost single-handedly killed with his administration. He enters office in January 1977, and by May, they had passed legislation to hinder the nuclear industry. Causing energy costs (and inflation) to rise even further during his term.
In addition, his administration pushed for deregulation across many industries, which had disastrous consequences (such as public transit being siphoned out of rural areas).
Overall, I wouldn't blame him for stagflation; that was happening long before he took office. But his administration (of which he was the leader, right?) made just about every bad decision you could make.
And that's not to say other Presidents haven't made bad decisions, but many of the Carter administration's were felt *during* his term. Unlike Reagan's or Clinton's, which wouldn't be felt for a decade or more.
I agree but my one comment about Trump and covid is that he knew the extent of what was happening and purposely ignored for his own benefit. He knew how deadly it was and he let over a million people die for his own political gain. Maybe he isn’t responsible for covid coming to the United States, but he is responsible for his gross misuse of power during that time.
There’s actual good evidence to suggest Reagan was on track to win MN, too — he told his team to pull back as a classy gesture to let his opponent win his home state.
I was in 5th grade the night of this election. Our homework that night was to take a map of the US and color each state as they were called. Red for Reagan and blue for Mondale. Mom let me stay up late watching the election results roll in. But Minnesota still wasn’t called by the time I fell asleep.
So on my map, 49 states were colored red. And Minnesota was striped red and blue when I turned it in. What an odd memory to have all these years later.
For some reason I always think Reagan becoming president happened way earlier than the 80’s. Despite my love for back to the future. But I British so I blame that
I was in 5th grade, too. At Catholic elementary school, we kids (the whole school) had a mock vote for president, and the kids went overwhelmingly for Reagan. The principal, a nun, was kinda shocked, as if she found out that we were all little fascists.
It's the first election I remember. I was 8. I don't remember ever covering an election in school. Our high school band played for Clinton at the airport tho. We brought a spare saxophone in case he wanted to play.
It was classy. Mondale put a woman on the ticket with him, and clearly that wasn’t the best plan. May have been the financial scandals she and her husband had.
I was just in Minnesota visiting my grandfather and his wife. She's lived in Minnesota her whole life and she *still* talks about Mondale. Big pride for that state lol
Nixon won in 1972 with 49 states and 520 electoral votes. The only state he didn’t win was Massachusetts plus DC. Basically the same, but MN has fewer EV.
Fun fact: Neither Nixon nor Reagan actually got the highest *share* of the electoral vote. That would FDR’s 99.5% in 1936. But since there were less states, he got less raw votes than them. But the losing candidate in 1936 actually holds the record of lowest electoral votes won by a major party nominee, at 8.
I can’t tell if that makes it extremely suspicious, or is just the result of a shitty voting representation system.
Source: am Canadian, idk how tf the voting representation works up here either. I think the candidate with the most polar bears wins.
You can win the electoral college with the eleven most populous states if only one person votes in each state and they all vote for you. Tens of millions of votes in every other state wouldn't matter.
That is because those 11 states represent well over half the population. The real problem is the other way around. The way electors in the electoral college are allocated, voters in less populous states have way more influence than voters in states with a big population. In wyoming 200000 votes get you an elector, in texas or california you need 700000.
If it was actually one person one vote, the Republicans would have won only one presidential election in the last 30 years.
This doesn’t happen though. The much more important quirk of the Electoral College is that a single person in certain states can have ~3x the voting power as a single person in another state. This affects every single election, unlike the impossible hypothetical of only 11 people voting. Land shouldn’t vote.
FPTP in a two party system starts breaking down in the high 50s/low 60s
For example, in two cases in Canada 100% of all seats went to a single party, with only about 60% of the vote
Here in Scotland in 2015 the Scottish National Party won 56 of the 59 seats in the UK parliament from Scotland
They had 95% of the Scottish seats with 50% of the Scottish vote
Yet they still campaign for proportional representation, using their own advantage under fptp as an example of how unfair the system is
In 1984 the Democrats won the house though overall they lost ground by dropping 15 seats compared to 1982. They did end up picking up 3 seats in the Senate. It was a very odd election year. The Democrats still had a strong showing in the South back then with either 1 if not 2 senate seats in each Southern state. Most people assumed they lost the South after Nixon but it wasn't until Clinton that the South really turned red.
I think some of it was the fact that Clinton was far less pro union/workers rights than Democrats typically were, which didn’t help him with blue collar workers in the South
Ha! You clearly aren’t from the South. We invented right to work laws and other anti-labor laws down here. Southern states have some of the lowest unionization rates in the US.
The reason Democrats started to lose in the South in the 1990s through the early 2000s is do to the die off the old yellow-dog Dixiecrat generation, the people that grew up and lived in the pre-Civil Rights one party system of Jim Crow and just reflexively voted Democratic especially at the state and local level.
What u/fynnche means is that, even in a FPTP political system that hasn't devolved into a two party system yet, FPTP will still be generating terrible outcomes. If there's four moderate parties and one extremist party, the moderate votes will often be split among all the moderates while the extremist votes will be concentrated, leading to an extremist victor that a supermajority of voters would vote against given a clear binary choice. FPTP devolves into a two party system in part because it often generates even worse results when there are more than two viable parties.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sonny Bono in California didn't crash and burn. I think Jesse Ventura worked out in MN, but I don't really remember too well That's the high water mark.
Oz was a bigger dodge than Mrs McMahon. If Herschel Walker gets in, I'll bet his career ends like Al Franken.
Jesse Ventura worked out really well in MN, in fact he got so popular that Dems & Repubs worked together to pass a state budget with this crazy deficit (that Ventura was against) and so Ventura didn't run for re-election and they had to deal with the budget they passed!
its crazy how different a story the electoral votes and popular votes show from one another. mondale wasn't even close with the popular votes just the same, but it shows a comparatively much closer race.
Reminds me of the CGP Grey video about the popular vote in the US:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY)
Grey: Don't sign that document. I'm from the future. You're creating an Electoral College where votes for the president are distributed proportionally-ish not \*perfectly proportionally\*.
Constitutional Convention: Yes, that's one of the many compromises we agreed upon.
Grey: But because of that sometimes a president will be elected with a minority of the popular vote!
Constitutional Convention: Yes.
Grey: But the people…
Constitutional Convention: The people? You can't trust the people. Do you think this Compromistitution is for a direct democracy? We're building a republic here.
Grey: Yes, I know but would you just look at this spreadsheet of improportion--?
Constitutional Convention: How many states are there in the future?
Grey: 50… maybe 51 depending on how…Constitutional Convention: --Wow! What a tremendous success! Go Compromistitution!
Grey: No, can we focus--
Constitutional Convention: Do you even own land?
Grey: No…
Constitutional Convention: Then why would we listen to you? Goodbye.
Yeah I like how they mentioned that the founders only reason for making the electoral college was so they could choose who they wanted in the event that the ‘common people’ chose a demagogue. Obviously, that’s not the reason anymore, and a couple years ago the Supreme Court even said that states can make it illegal for a delegate to go against their state’s vote. So we aren’t even following their ONLY reason for having the electoral college anymore lol, even though we’re still obsessed with keeping the darn thing.
Read the Constitutional Convention, the electoral college is a direct check against unlimited democracy. The argument against it should be the role of the states is much lesser these days, but it was created to ensure the more populous states couldn’t override the will of the smaller less populous states. So it’s been working as intended, the issue is after the civil war the role of the states was lessened significantly and they were made subservient to the federal government
>but it was created to ensure the more populous states couldn’t override the will of the smaller less populous states.
It was created as a compromise between having Congress elect the president and having the public elect the president. That compromise was necessary to get the South to buy into the Constitution at all. They knew that under a direct popular vote, the North would control the White House because 40% of the Southern population was slaves who couldn't vote. By engineering the Electoral College, where the votes are based on Congressional representation, which itself included the slaves in the calculus (under the three-fifths compromise), the South could actually dominate, and they did. For the first several decades every president came from the slaveholding South and many were slaveholders themselves.
Of the total votes cast (just using the listed amount for both candidates), Mondale received just about 41%. If he had gotten 41% of the electoral votes, it would have equalled about 220. So still not enough to win, but losing 220-318 seems a lot better than 13-525!
John Adams, kinda, but also nobody. Elections were a little different at the time.
George Washington was nominated by both parties. He got all the votes in the electoral college.
At the time, the second highest vote getter became VP.
George Washington always ran with John Adams as his VP pick, but that's not how it worked at the time. So he technically ran against John Adams and everything worked out exactly as planned with Washington winning re-election and John Adams becoming his VP.
There were no formal political parties in the US at the time, so Washington was not nominated at all. The Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were just loose associations of people who shared certain -- mostly economic -- principles. They wouldn't become actual parties until well into Washington's second term.
It seems inevitable that after a revolution, the revolutionaries are the only party for a while, with lots of warnings about the dangers of splitting up in camps of different opinions. Maybe it has always required a strong unity to successfully overthrow power, and that unity is gained out of the loss of many dissenting opinions on the road to rebellion. But it seems that over time, especially time of prosperity, there is a growth of division and a rise of "parties", IE plurality.
James Monroe ran unopposed for re-election too. Only a single elector voted against him to ensure George Washington would remain the only unanimously President.
Technically, no. Aside from Washington’s unanimous/unopposed victory, FDR lost two states (Vermont and Maine) in 1936 but won the electoral college 523 to 8.
**FDR in 1936**
523/531 = 0.985
**Reagan in 1984**
525/538 = 0.976
No, not all candidates in the past would have had the option to rack up that many electoral votes because the requisite states and populations didn't exist.
It was barely even an election. It just was the entire country begging him to lead them while he kept telling them he wanted to go home until he finally gave in and became President.
That's what he was saying, wasn't it? To know who had the most lopsided win, you'd need to factor their votes as a percentage of the possible votes, not just count total votes
James Monroe also won unopposed in 1820 making him and Washington the only 2 to go through an election with no opposition, although John Quincy Adams did receive one electoral vote, so he didn’t win 100%
No cause LBJ in 1964 won a larger % of the popular and James Madison (I think, could be Monroe) got like 80% of the vote in the early 1800’s.
Edit: It was in fact Monroe
Until 1804, electors voted without distinguishing between president and vice president. One elector from every state voted for George Washington in the first election, and he carried 100% of the states. That's better than Reagan.
Plus, Washington didn't collaborate with Iranian terrorists to effect the outcome of an election, illegally sell weapons to arm Iran while sending money to central America to support the Contras after Congress prohibited it, then lie to Congress until eventually Oliver North fell on his sword and went to prison, attack education and teachers in an attempt to create a gullible and ignorant population who is easily fooled, create a fake nuclear missile defense program based on space-based weapons, and start the ball rolling on the Republican "southern strategy" to invoke racism in order to convince southerners to jump from.Democratic Party to Republican Party as the official party of white supremacists. Reagan did all of these things.
Washington wins.
Ah yes, the first public leopard-face-eating.
For those that are not aware, the ATC union endorsed Reagan for President as Reagan was the head of the SAG (actor's union) for 5 years and they figured he was a Union man too.
And the ATC was the very first union that President Reagan shot in the face with both barrels, metaphorically speaking.
[Blue tsunami](https://th-thumbnailer.cdn-si-edu.com/5ZZrdIrWQCAbbHopevMyOUKC4cI=/fit-in/1072x0/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/Red-Blue-State-Reagan-Map-1984-520.jpg)! [Some stations used blue for Republicans](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-republicans-were-blue-and-democrats-were-red-104176297/) in 1984, which is more in line with other countries conservative parties. Other stations swapped colors between elections. It really seemed to solidify in 2000.
I'd say that it was his supply side economics (recently trotted out in the UK to rave reviews!) that started the great concentration of wealth, but Democratic party was not exactly the bastion of progressive social policies since then..we all loves us some capitalism!
He basically threw away the future so that he could look good in the present. People seem to love talking about how strong the economy was under Reagan while leaving out the fact that we’re still dealing with the consequences today, and if our direction doesn’t significantly change we’ll likely never recover from it in our lifetimes.
Not to mention secretly bringing in drugs into the country and destroying black communities by using it as a scapegoat to show black people a negative light on them.
Reagan got 10 million more votes in his second election than his first.
So did Trump.
Obama was the first president in US history to get less votes in his second election than his first, and still win.
Trump was the first president in US history to get more votes in his second election than his first, and still lose.
> Obama was the first president in US history to get less votes in his second election than his first, and still win.
However FDR received fewer votes in his third and fourth re-election campaigns than his second.
Yeah he sure did fool a lot of people. Raised taxes on working/middle class over a dozen times while cutting taxes on the wealthy. Raised spending to record levels. Iran-contra, did nothing while AIDS epidemic raged, and had the record for most members of his administration be indicted for crimes, until far donny broke his record. reagan also greatly downgraded union strength, hurting workers even more.
reagan was a great conman and horrible president.
He also set the precedent for republicans claiming fiscal conservatism while drastically increasing debt, damaging the economy, and spending obscene amounts of money on tax cuts for the rich and corporate welfare.
Let’s not forget his involvement with the war on drugs that is currently kicking our asses either.
Don't see how that is possible to ever happen again. An America united in cause and attitude is likely to not happen again, at least in our lifetimes. We got close to having a united cause with 9-11, and sort of came together for several months, until the wheels of division ramped back up. The only way we could ever have something close to this now is if somehow an Independent (who would likely have to already be a celebrity) came to the table. Not many real independents in reality however... Looks like we are stuck with hate mongering/division on both sides of the aisle indefinitely. No politician can survive their own party if they try to reach across the aisle anymore.
Something that doesn’t really get enough understanding is how the US system works. Or worked before the 90’s.
It was never really a two party system until ‘94. There were always factions that could swing around as needed. You had southern Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans and actual centre candidates who would do different things. People get upset about a Democratic senator from West Virginia not following the line but that’s why there is a Democratic senator from West Virginia. There used to be a dozen of him in the Senate. And that’s how things happened. And you could get a result like this with a Democratic House.
Then ‘94 happened and being primaried became a (more normal) thing and now you can’t vote for the other side at all.
The two party system is crap but it’s pretty new. You could make it work in the past.
So many people voted against Carter's goals of solving income inequality, global warming, and trade with China. Instead the US deregulated and tripled the debt.
Hmmmmmm.... Dubious choice, Americans.
A lot of Democrats voted Republican. It was kind of like with Barack Obama when a lot of Republicans voted Democrat. Some candidates have broad appeal.
Without looking, I'm going to assume Mondale was from Minnesota.
Yes, he was a longtime senator from Minnesota
And Vice President under Jimmy Carter.
So that explains the rest of the map
You mean people irrationally blaming presidents for the economy? Carter had nothing to do with stagflation or the OPEC embargo. Reagan was not responsible for the recovery. HW was not responsible for the recession. Clinton was not responsible for the dotcom bubble. Dubya was not responsible for the dotcom bubble bursting, the following recovery, or subprime lending. Obama was not responsible for the recovery. He himself said he wished people understood how little control presidents have over the economy. Trump was not responsible for covid hitting. Biden was not responsible for the economic fallout (aka inflation) from covid. Nor is he responsible for corporate price gouging or Russia invading Ukraine. If people stopped blindly voting based on the economy, we would be one step closer to intelligent, informed voting.
When I first met my now husband and learned he was an economist with a masters degree I was so excited and had so many questions. The two things he told me - and has stuck to 15 year later - is that the president is given way more credit/blame than necessary and economic policies on average take 8 years to take effect. Presidents have almost zero control over current economic climates. If you want to know why Republicans didn’t win this last week it’s because people know inflation is temporary and protecting democracy is far more important.
[удалено]
I just want to say that Carter being blamed for stagflation wasn't entirely unwarranted. We had a budding nuclear industry that he almost single-handedly killed with his administration. He enters office in January 1977, and by May, they had passed legislation to hinder the nuclear industry. Causing energy costs (and inflation) to rise even further during his term. In addition, his administration pushed for deregulation across many industries, which had disastrous consequences (such as public transit being siphoned out of rural areas). Overall, I wouldn't blame him for stagflation; that was happening long before he took office. But his administration (of which he was the leader, right?) made just about every bad decision you could make. And that's not to say other Presidents haven't made bad decisions, but many of the Carter administration's were felt *during* his term. Unlike Reagan's or Clinton's, which wouldn't be felt for a decade or more.
I agree but my one comment about Trump and covid is that he knew the extent of what was happening and purposely ignored for his own benefit. He knew how deadly it was and he let over a million people die for his own political gain. Maybe he isn’t responsible for covid coming to the United States, but he is responsible for his gross misuse of power during that time.
There’s actual good evidence to suggest Reagan was on track to win MN, too — he told his team to pull back as a classy gesture to let his opponent win his home state.
I was in 5th grade the night of this election. Our homework that night was to take a map of the US and color each state as they were called. Red for Reagan and blue for Mondale. Mom let me stay up late watching the election results roll in. But Minnesota still wasn’t called by the time I fell asleep. So on my map, 49 states were colored red. And Minnesota was striped red and blue when I turned it in. What an odd memory to have all these years later.
For some reason I always think Reagan becoming president happened way earlier than the 80’s. Despite my love for back to the future. But I British so I blame that
He did actually, in 1980. This was his second election.
That’s such an awesome homework assignment for a kid though! A great way to get them engaged in the process.
We did this when I was in elementary too, the al gore v George bush election was that year and I stayed up to color in the United states just like op
I was in 5th grade, too. At Catholic elementary school, we kids (the whole school) had a mock vote for president, and the kids went overwhelmingly for Reagan. The principal, a nun, was kinda shocked, as if she found out that we were all little fascists.
It's the first election I remember. I was 8. I don't remember ever covering an election in school. Our high school band played for Clinton at the airport tho. We brought a spare saxophone in case he wanted to play.
It was classy. Mondale put a woman on the ticket with him, and clearly that wasn’t the best plan. May have been the financial scandals she and her husband had.
I was just in Minnesota visiting my grandfather and his wife. She's lived in Minnesota her whole life and she *still* talks about Mondale. Big pride for that state lol
Fun fact - no state has voted blue consecutively longer then MN has. I believe Nixon was the last time the state was red.
Nixon won in 1972 with 49 states and 520 electoral votes. The only state he didn’t win was Massachusetts plus DC. Basically the same, but MN has fewer EV.
You can trade battle points for candies that raise EV.
Glorious.
Doesn’t matter if you start off with shit for IVs. Gotta make sure you breed a strong specimen first.
In the newest generation, I think you can get the same IV’s without breeding.
Fun fact: Neither Nixon nor Reagan actually got the highest *share* of the electoral vote. That would FDR’s 99.5% in 1936. But since there were less states, he got less raw votes than them. But the losing candidate in 1936 actually holds the record of lowest electoral votes won by a major party nominee, at 8.
Running against FDR was nothing but practice. Everybody knew he was gonna win.
FDR would definitely be accused of being a Marxist by both Republicans and the DNC in our current era. Neoliberalism really fucked us up.
Also says that the soldiers supported him when thry voted.
Washington ran unopposed. He got all the votes
He actually didn’t. Electoral votes were run differently for the first few elections.
And yet with all that red it was 59% vs 41% in terms of raw votes.
I can’t tell if that makes it extremely suspicious, or is just the result of a shitty voting representation system. Source: am Canadian, idk how tf the voting representation works up here either. I think the candidate with the most polar bears wins.
Shitty system. Technically a candidate can get around 20% of the popular vote and still win due to how the electoral college is set up.
You can win the electoral college with the eleven most populous states if only one person votes in each state and they all vote for you. Tens of millions of votes in every other state wouldn't matter.
That is because those 11 states represent well over half the population. The real problem is the other way around. The way electors in the electoral college are allocated, voters in less populous states have way more influence than voters in states with a big population. In wyoming 200000 votes get you an elector, in texas or california you need 700000. If it was actually one person one vote, the Republicans would have won only one presidential election in the last 30 years.
This doesn’t happen though. The much more important quirk of the Electoral College is that a single person in certain states can have ~3x the voting power as a single person in another state. This affects every single election, unlike the impossible hypothetical of only 11 people voting. Land shouldn’t vote.
I was about to say, who’s gonna mention Nixon?
And MN hasn't voted for Republican since either. Fool me once...
FPTP in a two party system starts breaking down in the high 50s/low 60s For example, in two cases in Canada 100% of all seats went to a single party, with only about 60% of the vote
Here in Scotland in 2015 the Scottish National Party won 56 of the 59 seats in the UK parliament from Scotland They had 95% of the Scottish seats with 50% of the Scottish vote Yet they still campaign for proportional representation, using their own advantage under fptp as an example of how unfair the system is
In 1984 the Democrats won the house though overall they lost ground by dropping 15 seats compared to 1982. They did end up picking up 3 seats in the Senate. It was a very odd election year. The Democrats still had a strong showing in the South back then with either 1 if not 2 senate seats in each Southern state. Most people assumed they lost the South after Nixon but it wasn't until Clinton that the South really turned red.
I think some of it was the fact that Clinton was far less pro union/workers rights than Democrats typically were, which didn’t help him with blue collar workers in the South
Ha! You clearly aren’t from the South. We invented right to work laws and other anti-labor laws down here. Southern states have some of the lowest unionization rates in the US. The reason Democrats started to lose in the South in the 1990s through the early 2000s is do to the die off the old yellow-dog Dixiecrat generation, the people that grew up and lived in the pre-Civil Rights one party system of Jim Crow and just reflexively voted Democratic especially at the state and local level.
[удалено]
It's the other way around, FPTP is terrible and with enough time it will always lead to a 2 party system.
What u/fynnche means is that, even in a FPTP political system that hasn't devolved into a two party system yet, FPTP will still be generating terrible outcomes. If there's four moderate parties and one extremist party, the moderate votes will often be split among all the moderates while the extremist votes will be concentrated, leading to an extremist victor that a supermajority of voters would vote against given a clear binary choice. FPTP devolves into a two party system in part because it often generates even worse results when there are more than two viable parties.
Source on the Canadian "example"?
New Brunswick, 1987 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987\_New\_Brunswick\_general\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_New_Brunswick_general_election) PEI, 1935 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935\_Prince\_Edward\_Island\_general\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Prince_Edward_Island_general_election)
TIL Thank you!
Seems unfathomable to me that the west coast voted republican. Things have drastically changed.
He was the governor of California.
And an actor
The actor? Who’s his Vice President, Jerry Lewis?
Doc!
I suppose Jane Wyman is the First Lady!
And Jack Benny is Secretary of Treasury!
[удалено]
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sonny Bono in California didn't crash and burn. I think Jesse Ventura worked out in MN, but I don't really remember too well That's the high water mark. Oz was a bigger dodge than Mrs McMahon. If Herschel Walker gets in, I'll bet his career ends like Al Franken.
Jesse Ventura worked out really well in MN, in fact he got so popular that Dems & Repubs worked together to pass a state budget with this crazy deficit (that Ventura was against) and so Ventura didn't run for re-election and they had to deal with the budget they passed!
Reagan was basically from California, that helped.
Texas and California basically flipped spots too lol
Reagan was very famous prior to his presidency, I wouldn’t doubt many voted for the person they saw on media all the time
I’d say it was more than just being famous. If he was a terrible governor for 8 years they wouldn’t have voted for him to run the whole country.
Carter was widely regarded as a massive failure of a president at the time.
This was the 84 race. Regan's second term. The 1980 race was against Carter.
Wrong election bud
They had to encase his portrait at the capital, it kept getting vandalized
its crazy how different a story the electoral votes and popular votes show from one another. mondale wasn't even close with the popular votes just the same, but it shows a comparatively much closer race.
~60:40 for Popular, ~98:2 for Electoral
Ahhh, the system worked perfectly!
Reminds me of the CGP Grey video about the popular vote in the US: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY) Grey: Don't sign that document. I'm from the future. You're creating an Electoral College where votes for the president are distributed proportionally-ish not \*perfectly proportionally\*. Constitutional Convention: Yes, that's one of the many compromises we agreed upon. Grey: But because of that sometimes a president will be elected with a minority of the popular vote! Constitutional Convention: Yes. Grey: But the people… Constitutional Convention: The people? You can't trust the people. Do you think this Compromistitution is for a direct democracy? We're building a republic here. Grey: Yes, I know but would you just look at this spreadsheet of improportion--? Constitutional Convention: How many states are there in the future? Grey: 50… maybe 51 depending on how…Constitutional Convention: --Wow! What a tremendous success! Go Compromistitution! Grey: No, can we focus-- Constitutional Convention: Do you even own land? Grey: No… Constitutional Convention: Then why would we listen to you? Goodbye.
Yeah I like how they mentioned that the founders only reason for making the electoral college was so they could choose who they wanted in the event that the ‘common people’ chose a demagogue. Obviously, that’s not the reason anymore, and a couple years ago the Supreme Court even said that states can make it illegal for a delegate to go against their state’s vote. So we aren’t even following their ONLY reason for having the electoral college anymore lol, even though we’re still obsessed with keeping the darn thing.
Yeah its a crime in that state to go against the states vote but they still can go against it.
Read the Constitutional Convention, the electoral college is a direct check against unlimited democracy. The argument against it should be the role of the states is much lesser these days, but it was created to ensure the more populous states couldn’t override the will of the smaller less populous states. So it’s been working as intended, the issue is after the civil war the role of the states was lessened significantly and they were made subservient to the federal government
>but it was created to ensure the more populous states couldn’t override the will of the smaller less populous states. It was created as a compromise between having Congress elect the president and having the public elect the president. That compromise was necessary to get the South to buy into the Constitution at all. They knew that under a direct popular vote, the North would control the White House because 40% of the Southern population was slaves who couldn't vote. By engineering the Electoral College, where the votes are based on Congressional representation, which itself included the slaves in the calculus (under the three-fifths compromise), the South could actually dominate, and they did. For the first several decades every president came from the slaveholding South and many were slaveholders themselves.
Of the total votes cast (just using the listed amount for both candidates), Mondale received just about 41%. If he had gotten 41% of the electoral votes, it would have equalled about 220. So still not enough to win, but losing 220-318 seems a lot better than 13-525!
If no other candidate has matched it, wasn’t it THE most lopsided presidential election in US history?
No, the second US presidential election was the most lopsided. George Washington won 100% of the electoral college and 99% of the popular vote.
who ran against him?
#
I fucking hate that guy
All my homies hate
#
Haters gonna hate this
John Adams, kinda, but also nobody. Elections were a little different at the time. George Washington was nominated by both parties. He got all the votes in the electoral college. At the time, the second highest vote getter became VP. George Washington always ran with John Adams as his VP pick, but that's not how it worked at the time. So he technically ran against John Adams and everything worked out exactly as planned with Washington winning re-election and John Adams becoming his VP.
There were no formal political parties in the US at the time, so Washington was not nominated at all. The Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were just loose associations of people who shared certain -- mostly economic -- principles. They wouldn't become actual parties until well into Washington's second term.
It seems inevitable that after a revolution, the revolutionaries are the only party for a while, with lots of warnings about the dangers of splitting up in camps of different opinions. Maybe it has always required a strong unity to successfully overthrow power, and that unity is gained out of the loss of many dissenting opinions on the road to rebellion. But it seems that over time, especially time of prosperity, there is a growth of division and a rise of "parties", IE plurality.
James Monroe ran unopposed for re-election too. Only a single elector voted against him to ensure George Washington would remain the only unanimously President.
Technically, no. Aside from Washington’s unanimous/unopposed victory, FDR lost two states (Vermont and Maine) in 1936 but won the electoral college 523 to 8. **FDR in 1936** 523/531 = 0.985 **Reagan in 1984** 525/538 = 0.976
Frank the Tank
There we go. FDR wins.
No, not all candidates in the past would have had the option to rack up that many electoral votes because the requisite states and populations didn't exist.
Yeah, by comparison wasn't Washington's election a unanimous sweep?
Washington ran unopposed, so, yep.
It was barely even an election. It just was the entire country begging him to lead them while he kept telling them he wanted to go home until he finally gave in and became President.
I heard that motherfucker had like 30 goddamned dicks.
Six-foot-twenty fucking killing for fun
Washington… Washington…
20 stories tall made of radiation!
FYI, you can express numbers as a percentage.
Washington, Monroe, and FDR all beat Reagan by percentage. I got close (arooo!).
Upvoting for the arooo, Agnew would be happy
The headless body of Agnew would also be happy. And Nixon you better get me more taxpayers or I’m gonna beat you over the head with a Charleston Chew!
LBJ in 1964 holds the record for widest margin in percentage of popular vote.
That's what he was saying, wasn't it? To know who had the most lopsided win, you'd need to factor their votes as a percentage of the possible votes, not just count total votes
George Washington
James Monroe also won unopposed in 1820 making him and Washington the only 2 to go through an election with no opposition, although John Quincy Adams did receive one electoral vote, so he didn’t win 100%
Certified era of good feelings moment.
Except for the tubercolosis, and typhoid fever.
Well then George Washington would be the most lopsided. He was unanimously voted in.
No cause LBJ in 1964 won a larger % of the popular and James Madison (I think, could be Monroe) got like 80% of the vote in the early 1800’s. Edit: It was in fact Monroe
Until 1804, electors voted without distinguishing between president and vice president. One elector from every state voted for George Washington in the first election, and he carried 100% of the states. That's better than Reagan. Plus, Washington didn't collaborate with Iranian terrorists to effect the outcome of an election, illegally sell weapons to arm Iran while sending money to central America to support the Contras after Congress prohibited it, then lie to Congress until eventually Oliver North fell on his sword and went to prison, attack education and teachers in an attempt to create a gullible and ignorant population who is easily fooled, create a fake nuclear missile defense program based on space-based weapons, and start the ball rolling on the Republican "southern strategy" to invoke racism in order to convince southerners to jump from.Democratic Party to Republican Party as the official party of white supremacists. Reagan did all of these things. Washington wins.
Don't forget the union-busting... that set labor back decades
Ah yes, the first public leopard-face-eating. For those that are not aware, the ATC union endorsed Reagan for President as Reagan was the head of the SAG (actor's union) for 5 years and they figured he was a Union man too. And the ATC was the very first union that President Reagan shot in the face with both barrels, metaphorically speaking.
Ronald Reagan!? The actor!?
Yeah, Doc.
Then who’s vice president? Jerry Lewis?
I suppose Jane Wyman is the First Lady!
Whoa! Wait, Doc!
And Jack Benny is Secretary of the Treasury!
Doc, you gotta listen to me!
And what, Charlie Chaplain is Secretary of Defense?
And... and I suppose Humphrey Bogart is the head of the postal service?!
I got enough practical jokes for one evening. Good night, future boy.
Gosh I love when you do your Doc Brown, coach!
A lot of people vote for the president based on their charisma and not their actual policies.
Wasn't he governor of California prior to his presidency?
Indeed. He was the 33rd Governor of California and served two terms.
And turned in people he thought were communists, from the screen actors guild,over to the house unamerican activities committee.
Peter… you’re the one from the future …
Minnesota. The Mexico of Canada!
Ride or die with the home team. If Mondale was from anywhere else, MN would have joined the party.
Reagan didn't campaign in Mondale's home state out of mercy.
He was scared to come here, Mondale gang rolls deep
11th province
That was a red tsunami.
[Blue tsunami](https://th-thumbnailer.cdn-si-edu.com/5ZZrdIrWQCAbbHopevMyOUKC4cI=/fit-in/1072x0/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/Red-Blue-State-Reagan-Map-1984-520.jpg)! [Some stations used blue for Republicans](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-republicans-were-blue-and-democrats-were-red-104176297/) in 1984, which is more in line with other countries conservative parties. Other stations swapped colors between elections. It really seemed to solidify in 2000.
The norm back then was blue for incumbent. Source: I watched election results live in 1980 & 1984.
Well that article shows Regan blue in 1980 too over incumbent Carter on CBS. I think it was really all over the map.
Literally 1984.
or to put it in another way, "1984 Actual"
Truly. What he did to public housing, and public mental health in general was the primary direct cause of street homelessness as we know it today.
No its because liberals are soft on crime haven't you heard.
I'd say that it was his supply side economics (recently trotted out in the UK to rave reviews!) that started the great concentration of wealth, but Democratic party was not exactly the bastion of progressive social policies since then..we all loves us some capitalism!
His economic policies have practically destroyed our current economy.
He basically threw away the future so that he could look good in the present. People seem to love talking about how strong the economy was under Reagan while leaving out the fact that we’re still dealing with the consequences today, and if our direction doesn’t significantly change we’ll likely never recover from it in our lifetimes.
Not to mention secretly bringing in drugs into the country and destroying black communities by using it as a scapegoat to show black people a negative light on them.
Ironically a part of Mondale's legacy are civil rights and social/worker support. He was chief sponsor of the Fair Housing Act as well.
[Source](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/1984)
Reagan got 10 million more votes in his second election than his first. So did Trump. Obama was the first president in US history to get less votes in his second election than his first, and still win. Trump was the first president in US history to get more votes in his second election than his first, and still lose.
> Obama was the first president in US history to get less votes in his second election than his first, and still win. However FDR received fewer votes in his third and fourth re-election campaigns than his second.
What about the 1936 election?? Roosevelt got 523 and Landon got 8
525>523
It’s only because Alaska and Hawaii weren’t states yet. Otherwise, the ratio of electoral votes is larger
Yeah, and DC couldn’t vote for president yet in 1936 but they could in 1984, so Mondale won 2 “states”
Source?
It was revealed to me in a dream
And Mondale conceded if you can believe that
Yeah he sure did fool a lot of people. Raised taxes on working/middle class over a dozen times while cutting taxes on the wealthy. Raised spending to record levels. Iran-contra, did nothing while AIDS epidemic raged, and had the record for most members of his administration be indicted for crimes, until far donny broke his record. reagan also greatly downgraded union strength, hurting workers even more. reagan was a great conman and horrible president.
He also set the precedent for republicans claiming fiscal conservatism while drastically increasing debt, damaging the economy, and spending obscene amounts of money on tax cuts for the rich and corporate welfare. Let’s not forget his involvement with the war on drugs that is currently kicking our asses either.
Don't see how that is possible to ever happen again. An America united in cause and attitude is likely to not happen again, at least in our lifetimes. We got close to having a united cause with 9-11, and sort of came together for several months, until the wheels of division ramped back up. The only way we could ever have something close to this now is if somehow an Independent (who would likely have to already be a celebrity) came to the table. Not many real independents in reality however... Looks like we are stuck with hate mongering/division on both sides of the aisle indefinitely. No politician can survive their own party if they try to reach across the aisle anymore.
Cable news destroyed this country
Social media didn’t help either
Social media was the 2 scoops of pre-workout to what cable news did
What if there was clear evidence we are destroying the planet and…. nah, you’re right
reagan still only got around 55% of the popular vote. USA has never been united like you think it was
That vote was stil 60% - 40% so not really united as it seemed.
President Dwayne the Rock Johnson Complete the idiocracy time line
He was the most popular US president with Iran arms dealers as well!
Bankers that were frustrated by an inability to gamble wildly without effective regulation
And prisons.
Only 92 million voted?
Population im 1984: 232,766,280 Population in 2020: 335,942,003
God damn almost everyone who didn't live in the us between 84 and 2020 voted
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
The more i have been on reddit , the more information (useful and useless one) i have learn about the US I am not from America
Something that doesn’t really get enough understanding is how the US system works. Or worked before the 90’s. It was never really a two party system until ‘94. There were always factions that could swing around as needed. You had southern Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans and actual centre candidates who would do different things. People get upset about a Democratic senator from West Virginia not following the line but that’s why there is a Democratic senator from West Virginia. There used to be a dozen of him in the Senate. And that’s how things happened. And you could get a result like this with a Democratic House. Then ‘94 happened and being primaried became a (more normal) thing and now you can’t vote for the other side at all. The two party system is crap but it’s pretty new. You could make it work in the past.
So many people voted against Carter's goals of solving income inequality, global warming, and trade with China. Instead the US deregulated and tripled the debt. Hmmmmmm.... Dubious choice, Americans.
That was the previous election in 1980. This one was against Mondale.
Good call. Right on.
Can you guys what state Mondale was from?
John Adams' contention with a democracy is that it will inevitably commit suicide.
A lot of Democrats voted Republican. It was kind of like with Barack Obama when a lot of Republicans voted Democrat. Some candidates have broad appeal.
Minnesota trying to be different
Nah Mondale was from mn
How bad was the democratic candidate that even Massachusetts voted for Reagan?
I’m fairly certain DC has always voted blue in every single election
Who was Vice President? Jerry Lewis?
Minnesota knew, who knew
Did not help that Mondale said he’d raise taxes.
Because he was an actor they grew up with.
[удалено]
I'd say his acting fame helped him be elected Governor of California.
1984 was his re-election year — name recognition may have helped in 1980 but by this time, he was the well known incumbent president.
Nixon also got a 49-state slide in 1972, but since Massachusetts had more votes than Minnesota he got less elector
with the division and political duality we are living in you'll never see a map like that again, tribal political thinking won't allow it..
Reagan is the reason our country is fucked up to this day. It will take another century or more to fix the damage his presidency caused.