Did Barack Obama just win a landslide in the popular vote? Are Obama supporters rightly concluding that he’s now got a mandate from the American people to steer our country far to the left?
If anyone tells you that “Yes” he won a landslide in the popular vote, or that his popular vote totals are “historic”, or that he’s now got a wholesale mandate from the American people, then here’s a little context on the popular vote that proves otherwise:
Obama got about 63 million votes. The spread between Obama’s and McCain’s popular vote was about 6%. However, in the popular vote, 6% is not a landslide of epic proportions. Here’s the history . . .
- Clinton won against Dole in 1996 with a popular vote margin of 8.5%.
- Bush, the elder, won in 1988 with a popular vote margin of 7.8%.
- Reagan defeated Mondale in 1984 with a margin of 18.2%.
- In 1980, Reagan bested Carter in the popular vote by 9.7%.
- The mother of all blow outs in recent history was Nixon in 1972, earning him a popular vote margin of a whopping 23.2%.
- In 1964, Johnson trounced his opponent with an impressive 22.6% margin in the popular vote.
- Eisenhower won by double digit margins in both 1952 and 1956 (10.9% and 15.4%, respectively).
- FDR topped Obama’s 6% spread in all four of his elections (in 1944, it was 7.5%; in 1940, it was 9.9%; in 1936, it was 24.3%; and in 1932, it was 17.7%).
Over the last 21 presidential elections since 1932, Obama’s popular vote margin ranks 8th out of those 21 elections and thus, below the median. In other words, it’s below average. Granted, a 6% margin in the popular vote was a good turnout for him, but it’s definitely not historic. And, saying so is not spin. It’s simple history.
Also, consider 1932 in particular. The US was still in the throes of the Great Depression. In 1932, the political headwinds were greatly against the incumbent party. Roosevelt creamed Hoover with a popular vote margin of 17.7%. Now, flash forward to 2008 . . . Obama too has strong political tailwinds at his back: The first black candidate, an unpopular 2 term incumbent president, a financial crisis occurring in September and October that has been compared to the Great Depression (a gross exaggeration, I think) and blamed (incorrectly) on the incumbent party. With a strong tailwind in his favor, Obama pulls a 6% popular vote margin, regardless of how many new voters joined the fray in 2008. In 1932, FDR landslided with a popular vote margin of 17.7%! The elections of 1932 and 2008 supposedly happened under similar economic crises, but these elections resulted in vastly different popular vote margins. FDR’s margin of 17.7% could be fairly interpreted as a mandate from the American people. Obama’s 6%? Not so.
So, expect folks to cite the 63 million figure and tell you it’s an historic mandate for Obama. But, know based on history that it was not an unprecedented blowout in the popular vote. In the category of popular vote margins, Obama ranks in the bottom 50% of the class of presidential elections spanning from 1932 to 2008. It was a solid enough win for him, but, in terms of the popular vote, not one for the history books and certainly not justification to veer the country toward socialism. Obama’s popular vote, in the context of history, is wholly undeserving of being interpreted as a mandate.
Incumbency
I was a retread named Zombie Flanders / randomkid. Friday, November 7th at 2:46PM EST (link)I think the key thing here is to think about challengers vs incumbents. There have been a lot of bigger landslides, but the biggest ones are for incumbents. In terms of non-incumbents, in postwar times, this was bigger than 2000,1992,1976,1968, and 1960 and smaller than 1980,1988 (though HW was veep), and 1952. It is the biggest vote for a non-incumbent in 20 years, and if you count the veep as a pseudo-incumbent, the largest since 1980 with Reagan.
Also, it seems bigger given recent history. People said “mandate” after Bush in 2004, so they’ll say it after Obama now.
65 million, not 63 million, and still counting
Reaper0Bot0 (formerly Han_Pritcher) Friday, November 7th at 3:08PM EST (link)Obama - 65,132,302 53%
McCain - 57,185,339 46%
Is it historic? No. It’s by no means the largest margin of victory. But it was absolutely not small. He’s ahead by just about eight million votes, and again, they’re still counting.
I’m a lying troll.
In Response . . .
mailloux Friday, November 7th at 4:41PM EST (link)2006personoftheyear & HanPritcher:
I see both of your points and appreciate you folks sharing your thoughts. It’s always helpful to get different angles, especially with data.
Yes, Obama’s vote margin was healthy, but I still think it falls far short of the expectations surrounding his campaign. Several outlier polls even put him ahead by up to 15 points. And, in no small part due to his messianic image, some thought this would be the mother of all blow-outs, and thus, an indication that he’s got a resounding mandate for a sea change far to the left.
In my post, I also wanted to stress the 1932 election of FDR. He too was not the incumbent and the US was experiencing an economic crisis at the time. FDR’s margin of 17.7% in the popular vote was far more impressive than Obama’s 6%. The media has hammered away at the idea that the 2008 crisis is just about as bad as the Great Depression (as an aside, my local paper in Wisconsin featured a picture from the Great Depression of two children eating salted lard sandwiches issued by the government . . . this was the weekend before the election and in context to the 2008 financial crisis. Thank God, we are not reduced to eating salted lard sandwiches and hopefully we won’t be. As I write this, you can still buy, at a very reasonble price, a Cheese Mountain Pizza at QuickTrip Gas Stations and wash it down with a mind boggling choice of beverages.). This was the pre-election message the media pushed because it was harmful to the incumbent party. Obama was to be the cool headed savior, already compared to the likes of Lincoln and Kennedy, that was supposed to sweep in and save us with a new New Deal. In my humble opinion, the vote margin of 6% doesn’t indicate that the public looked at it in quite the same way.
Again, thank you for your excellent comments and for reading my post.
Take Care,
mailloux
Mandates don't exist. Period
Republican_Michigander Friday, November 7th at 6:33PM EST (link)At least since 1930’s. Those that claim mandates always tend to overreach and fail. Reagan was close but lost the senate in 86. Bush lost in 06 after 04. Clinton lost in 94.
Less Government, More Freedom
http://republicanmichigander.blogspot.com
Landslide, no: Mandate, yes.
ClassicConservative Saturday, November 8th at 12:34AM EST (link)20 House seats, 6 Senate seats, and +7-8 million on his opponent… thats kind of a distinguished win.
I’m not going to lie, if McCain and the GOP achieved that I’d be calling it a mandate.
Landslides and mandates
Erik and Kipalee Bakken Sunday, November 9th at 4:08PM EST (link)A landslide usually means nearly all the land is sliding, doesn’t it? Not 54%-56% of the land. If the Packers win 21-14 against the Vikings, nobody calls it a “blowout.” Let’s save terms like “mandate” and “landslide” for times when it really warrants it.