More on Presidential Elections

Some time ago, I posted that the Democrats have had a gradual upward trend in presidential elections while  the Republican presidential candidates have trended slowly  downward. Here are the vote totals from presidential elections, dating back to 1972.

1972
Nixon (R) 60.7%
McGovern (D) 37.5%

1976
Carter (D) 50.1%
Ford (R) 48.0%

1980
Reagan (R) 50.7%
Carter (D) 41.0 %
Anderson (I) 6.6%

1984
Reagan (R) 58.8%
Mondale (D) 40.6%

1988
Bush (R) 53.4%
Dukakis (D) 45.7%

1992
Clinton (D) 43.0%
Bush (R) 37.5%
Perot (I) 18.9%

1996
Clinton (D) 49.2%
Dole (R) 40.7%
Perot (I) 8.4%

2000
Bush (R) 47.9%
Gore (D) 48.4%

2004
Bush (R) 50.7%
Kerry (D) 48.3%

2008
Obama (D) 52.9%
McCain (R) 45.7%

And now a few observations. First of all, it's hard to tell who will be hurt most by an independent candidate. I'd guess that John Anderson took votes that would have gone more or less evenly between Reagan and Carter. Clearly, however, the Perot candidacies hurt Bush and Dole more than Clinton. Then in 2000 Ralph Nader's vote total, mostly taken from people who would have gone for Gore, cost him the presidency.

Second, the electorate has been divided pretty sharply for the last twenty years. There is no great concensus now, and hasn't been  since the Reagan landslide of 1984. Democrats have done a little better in every succesive election since then with only  minor setbacks, while the Republicans have gradually declined. That doesn't necessarily mean the trend won't be reversed this year, but  the GOP obviously  must attract a larger constituency, which explains why President Bush made his sporadic effort to win Latino voters. It doesn't seem to have worked so far - California has become a safe state for the Democrats, and Arizona and New Mexico are "in play" now, though they have gone Republican in days gone by.

Finally, for heaven's sake, don't nominate a candidate whose last name begins with the letter M. I don't know if this applies to candidates with a first name that starts with M.