Mixing
30+ years ago, why was there often a huge split between the presidential and house elections but not anymore?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In 1988, Republican presidential nominee (and incumbent vice president) George H.W. Bush won 40 out of 50 states and a 7.8% margin in the popular vote. On the same day, Democrats in the House of Representatives won an 85-seat majority with a 7.7% lead in the popular vote. That's a 15.5% discrepancy between the popular votes for President and House.
In 1984, Republican Ronald Reagan won re-election carrying 49 states and he won the popular vote by 18.2% while Democrats won a 71-seat majority in the House and won the popular vote by 5.1%. That's a 23.3% discrepancy.
In 1980, Reagan was elected with 44states and a 9.7% popular vote margin. Meanwhile in the House of Representatives, Democrats won a 51-seat majority with a 2.6% lead in the popular vote. That's a 12.3% discrepancy in the popular vote.
Going back further to 1972, Republican president Richard Nixon was re-elected with 49 states and a 23.2% margin in the popular vote. At the same time House Democrats in the house won a 50-seat majority with a 5.6% popular vote advantage. That's a 28.8% discrepancy.
Why were there such a huge discrepancies? This has not happened since 1988.
In 2016, the discrepancy between the popular votes for president and house was only 3.2%. In 2012, it was 2.7%. In 2008, it was 4.4%. In 2004, it was 0.2%. In 2000, it was 1%. In 1996, it was 8.5%. In 1992, it was 0.6%.
Nowadays it seems most voters give all of their votes to candidates from the same party (at least for federal elections). So it's hard for me to understand how 30-40 years ago large numbers of voters were splitting their votes. What changed? Why were voters so willing to split votes 30+ years ago but not today?
united-states presidential-election house-of-representatives
asked 2 hours ago
Thomas
65028
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In 1988, Republican presidential nominee (and incumbent vice president) George H.W. Bush won 40 out of 50 states and a 7.8% margin in the popular vote. On the same day, Democrats in the House of Representatives won an 85-seat majority with a 7.7% lead in the popular vote. That's a 15.5% discrepancy between the popular votes for President and House.
In 1984, Republican Ronald Reagan won re-election carrying 49 states and he won the popular vote by 18.2% while Democrats won a 71-seat majority in the House and won the popular vote by 5.1%. That's a 23.3% discrepancy.
In 1980, Reagan was elected with 44states and a 9.7% popular vote margin. Meanwhile in the House of Representatives, Democrats won a 51-seat majority with a 2.6% lead in the popular vote. That's a 12.3% discrepancy in the popular vote.
Going back further to 1972, Republican president Richard Nixon was re-elected with 49 states and a 23.2% margin in the popular vote. At the same time House Democrats in the house won a 50-seat majority with a 5.6% popular vote advantage. That's a 28.8% discrepancy.
Why were there such a huge discrepancies? This has not happened since 1988.
In 2016, the discrepancy between the popular votes for president and house was only 3.2%. In 2012, it was 2.7%. In 2008, it was 4.4%. In 2004, it was 0.2%. In 2000, it was 1%. In 1996, it was 8.5%. In 1992, it was 0.6%.
Nowadays it seems most voters give all of their votes to candidates from the same party (at least for federal elections). So it's hard for me to understand how 30-40 years ago large numbers of voters were splitting their votes. What changed? Why were voters so willing to split votes 30+ years ago but not today?
united-states presidential-election house-of-representatives
asked 2 hours ago
Thomas
65028
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In 1988, Republican presidential nominee (and incumbent vice president) George H.W. Bush won 40 out of 50 states and a 7.8% margin in the popular vote. On the same day, Democrats in the House of Representatives won an 85-seat majority with a 7.7% lead in the popular vote. That's a 15.5% discrepancy between the popular votes for President and House.
In 1984, Republican Ronald Reagan won re-election carrying 49 states and he won the popular vote by 18.2% while Democrats won a 71-seat majority in the House and won the popular vote by 5.1%. That's a 23.3% discrepancy.
In 1980, Reagan was elected with 44states and a 9.7% popular vote margin. Meanwhile in the House of Representatives, Democrats won a 51-seat majority with a 2.6% lead in the popular vote. That's a 12.3% discrepancy in the popular vote.
Going back further to 1972, Republican president Richard Nixon was re-elected with 49 states and a 23.2% margin in the popular vote. At the same time House Democrats in the house won a 50-seat majority with a 5.6% popular vote advantage. That's a 28.8% discrepancy.
Why were there such a huge discrepancies? This has not happened since 1988.
In 2016, the discrepancy between the popular votes for president and house was only 3.2%. In 2012, it was 2.7%. In 2008, it was 4.4%. In 2004, it was 0.2%. In 2000, it was 1%. In 1996, it was 8.5%. In 1992, it was 0.6%.
Nowadays it seems most voters give all of their votes to candidates from the same party (at least for federal elections). So it's hard for me to understand how 30-40 years ago large numbers of voters were splitting their votes. What changed? Why were voters so willing to split votes 30+ years ago but not today?
united-states presidential-election house-of-representatives
asked 2 hours ago
Thomas
65028
In 1988, Republican presidential nominee (and incumbent vice president) George H.W. Bush won 40 out of 50 states and a 7.8% margin in the popular vote. On the same day, Democrats in the House of Representatives won an 85-seat majority with a 7.7% lead in the popular vote. That's a 15.5% discrepancy between the popular votes for President and House.
In 1984, Republican Ronald Reagan won re-election carrying 49 states and he won the popular vote by 18.2% while Democrats won a 71-seat majority in the House and won the popular vote by 5.1%. That's a 23.3% discrepancy.
In 1980, Reagan was elected with 44states and a 9.7% popular vote margin. Meanwhile in the House of Representatives, Democrats won a 51-seat majority with a 2.6% lead in the popular vote. That's a 12.3% discrepancy in the popular vote.
Going back further to 1972, Republican president Richard Nixon was re-elected with 49 states and a 23.2% margin in the popular vote. At the same time House Democrats in the house won a 50-seat majority with a 5.6% popular vote advantage. That's a 28.8% discrepancy.
Why were there such a huge discrepancies? This has not happened since 1988.
In 2016, the discrepancy between the popular votes for president and house was only 3.2%. In 2012, it was 2.7%. In 2008, it was 4.4%. In 2004, it was 0.2%. In 2000, it was 1%. In 1996, it was 8.5%. In 1992, it was 0.6%.
Nowadays it seems most voters give all of their votes to candidates from the same party (at least for federal elections). So it's hard for me to understand how 30-40 years ago large numbers of voters were splitting their votes. What changed? Why were voters so willing to split votes 30+ years ago but not today?
united-states presidential-election house-of-representatives
united-states presidential-election house-of-representatives
asked 2 hours ago
Thomas
65028
asked 2 hours ago
Thomas
65028
edited 1 hour ago
asked 2 hours ago
Thomas
65028
asked 2 hours ago
Thomas
65028
asked 2 hours ago
Thomas
65028
65028
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Southern Democrats
In 1972, most southern states were overwhelmingly Democrat. But these Southern Democrats had a different ideology than Northern Democrats. They were more conservative, particularly on moral issues (e.g. sex outside marriage and abortion bad). Democratic presidential candidates tended to have Northern Democratic ideologies. As a result, Southern Democrats often voted for Republicans for president, but they would vote for other Southern Democrats for Congress.
In 1994, this changed. Southern Democrats increasingly voted Republican for Congress as well as the presidency. In fact, there is only one Southern Democrat left in Congress: Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia.
answered 49 mins ago
Brythan
65k7132223
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
A lot of factors probably involved, for example the home states of presidential candidates and their running mates may have more influence over general election voting that strict party loyalty. Nixon and Reagan were from California, the state with the most electoral votes. Bush was from Texas, 2nd only to California in votes.
For Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush I can get more specific. They had the support of a group of voters sometimes called the Regan Democrats who voted a split-ticket. Some authors spoke of a Regan Mandate - the Reagan supporters and the country at large, seemed to share his desire to take a stronger line with the Soviet Union and favored spending more on national defense, which lead to reduction of tensions of the Cold War. During Regan's terms, it seemed there was a more bi-partisan cooperation between legislative and executive branches. Some of that carried over to democratic support in Bush's election.
answered 22 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,192222
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Southern Democrats
In 1972, most southern states were overwhelmingly Democrat. But these Southern Democrats had a different ideology than Northern Democrats. They were more conservative, particularly on moral issues (e.g. sex outside marriage and abortion bad). Democratic presidential candidates tended to have Northern Democratic ideologies. As a result, Southern Democrats often voted for Republicans for president, but they would vote for other Southern Democrats for Congress.
In 1994, this changed. Southern Democrats increasingly voted Republican for Congress as well as the presidency. In fact, there is only one Southern Democrat left in Congress: Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia.
answered 49 mins ago
Brythan
65k7132223
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Southern Democrats
In 1972, most southern states were overwhelmingly Democrat. But these Southern Democrats had a different ideology than Northern Democrats. They were more conservative, particularly on moral issues (e.g. sex outside marriage and abortion bad). Democratic presidential candidates tended to have Northern Democratic ideologies. As a result, Southern Democrats often voted for Republicans for president, but they would vote for other Southern Democrats for Congress.
In 1994, this changed. Southern Democrats increasingly voted Republican for Congress as well as the presidency. In fact, there is only one Southern Democrat left in Congress: Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia.
answered 49 mins ago
Brythan
65k7132223
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Southern Democrats
In 1972, most southern states were overwhelmingly Democrat. But these Southern Democrats had a different ideology than Northern Democrats. They were more conservative, particularly on moral issues (e.g. sex outside marriage and abortion bad). Democratic presidential candidates tended to have Northern Democratic ideologies. As a result, Southern Democrats often voted for Republicans for president, but they would vote for other Southern Democrats for Congress.
In 1994, this changed. Southern Democrats increasingly voted Republican for Congress as well as the presidency. In fact, there is only one Southern Democrat left in Congress: Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia.
answered 49 mins ago
Brythan
65k7132223
Southern Democrats
In 1972, most southern states were overwhelmingly Democrat. But these Southern Democrats had a different ideology than Northern Democrats. They were more conservative, particularly on moral issues (e.g. sex outside marriage and abortion bad). Democratic presidential candidates tended to have Northern Democratic ideologies. As a result, Southern Democrats often voted for Republicans for president, but they would vote for other Southern Democrats for Congress.
In 1994, this changed. Southern Democrats increasingly voted Republican for Congress as well as the presidency. In fact, there is only one Southern Democrat left in Congress: Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia.
answered 49 mins ago
Brythan
65k7132223
answered 49 mins ago
Brythan
65k7132223
answered 49 mins ago
Brythan
65k7132223
answered 49 mins ago
Brythan
65k7132223
65k7132223
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
A lot of factors probably involved, for example the home states of presidential candidates and their running mates may have more influence over general election voting that strict party loyalty. Nixon and Reagan were from California, the state with the most electoral votes. Bush was from Texas, 2nd only to California in votes.
For Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush I can get more specific. They had the support of a group of voters sometimes called the Regan Democrats who voted a split-ticket. Some authors spoke of a Regan Mandate - the Reagan supporters and the country at large, seemed to share his desire to take a stronger line with the Soviet Union and favored spending more on national defense, which lead to reduction of tensions of the Cold War. During Regan's terms, it seemed there was a more bi-partisan cooperation between legislative and executive branches. Some of that carried over to democratic support in Bush's election.
answered 22 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,192222
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
A lot of factors probably involved, for example the home states of presidential candidates and their running mates may have more influence over general election voting that strict party loyalty. Nixon and Reagan were from California, the state with the most electoral votes. Bush was from Texas, 2nd only to California in votes.
For Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush I can get more specific. They had the support of a group of voters sometimes called the Regan Democrats who voted a split-ticket. Some authors spoke of a Regan Mandate - the Reagan supporters and the country at large, seemed to share his desire to take a stronger line with the Soviet Union and favored spending more on national defense, which lead to reduction of tensions of the Cold War. During Regan's terms, it seemed there was a more bi-partisan cooperation between legislative and executive branches. Some of that carried over to democratic support in Bush's election.
answered 22 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,192222
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
A lot of factors probably involved, for example the home states of presidential candidates and their running mates may have more influence over general election voting that strict party loyalty. Nixon and Reagan were from California, the state with the most electoral votes. Bush was from Texas, 2nd only to California in votes.
For Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush I can get more specific. They had the support of a group of voters sometimes called the Regan Democrats who voted a split-ticket. Some authors spoke of a Regan Mandate - the Reagan supporters and the country at large, seemed to share his desire to take a stronger line with the Soviet Union and favored spending more on national defense, which lead to reduction of tensions of the Cold War. During Regan's terms, it seemed there was a more bi-partisan cooperation between legislative and executive branches. Some of that carried over to democratic support in Bush's election.
answered 22 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,192222
A lot of factors probably involved, for example the home states of presidential candidates and their running mates may have more influence over general election voting that strict party loyalty. Nixon and Reagan were from California, the state with the most electoral votes. Bush was from Texas, 2nd only to California in votes.
For Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush I can get more specific. They had the support of a group of voters sometimes called the Regan Democrats who voted a split-ticket. Some authors spoke of a Regan Mandate - the Reagan supporters and the country at large, seemed to share his desire to take a stronger line with the Soviet Union and favored spending more on national defense, which lead to reduction of tensions of the Cold War. During Regan's terms, it seemed there was a more bi-partisan cooperation between legislative and executive branches. Some of that carried over to democratic support in Bush's election.
answered 22 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,192222
edited 16 mins ago
answered 22 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,192222
answered 22 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,192222
answered 22 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,192222
1,192222
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35199%2f30-years-ago-why-was-there-often-a-huge-split-between-the-presidential-and-hou%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password