In November, President Trump became the first republican candidate to win the popular vote in an American presidential election since George W Bush in 2004. He defeated the Vice-President Kamala Harris of the 1.48-point Democrat.
Since then, experts and social media users on the left have tried to minimize the size of this victory, while those on the right have tried to exaggerate it.
The cold, harsh and historical facts tell us that its margin of popular voting victory is classified 50th out of 60 (if we take the moments when the loser of the popular vote won the electoral college as a negative value). In this sense, his margin of victory is by no means exceptional.
However, similarly the token, the popular victory for Joe Biden’s vote in the 2020 presidential election (4.45 points) is also only ranked the 42nd out of 60. However, this did not prevent the consumer media from calling him a decisive victory, or even a landslide on several occasions.
It seems that the era of landslides in good faith in the American presidential elections is behind us. This was the fourth consecutive election when the popular vote was less than five points – it never happened in American history before. The last time the candidate for one or the other of the main parties published a two -digit victory was in 1984, with Historical re-election of Ronald Reagan, at 49 United States. He then won the popular vote by 18.21 points. The largest popular voting victory to date in the 21st century during a presidential election is that of Barack Obama of the Democratic Party in 2008, which won by 7.27 points.
“ It seems that the era of landslides in good faith in the American presidential elections is behind us ”
The previous century, on the other hand, was filled with so massive blows. Democrat Franklin D Roosevelt won the popular vote of 17.76 points in 1932Following the escape of the great depression under the republican administration of Herbert Hoover. Four years later, President Roosevelt was re -elected with an even larger victory of 24.26 points during the popular vote.
The republican Dwight of Eisenhower won by 10.85 points and 15.40 points in 1952 and 1956, respectively. “ Landslide Lyndon ‘B Johnson (who, interesting, obtained this nickname of sarcastic after a very close and dubious democratic election) won by 22.58 points in 1964. Eight years later, Richard Nixon of the Republican won the national popular vote by even more, 23.15 points.
Republican Warren G Harding, who is now widely considered one of the worst presidents of the history of the United States, won by 26.17 points in 1920. After his death in office, his vice-president Calvin Coolidge triumphed with a victory of 25.22 points in 1924. Theodore Roosevelt also had a field of field.
How is it that such victories of landslide no longer occur in the American presidential elections?
The obvious answer would be that American society is now much more polarized than in the previous century. People have so strong opinions on the division of the day that there are just fewer voters who can be convinced to vote for a different party from their usual choice, or to “sit” and let the other team take W.
It is certainly reasonable to concede that this is in fact the case. So, instead of proving this thesis, it would be wiser to explain why it is the case.
A plausible reason is the saturation of the media. Progress of technology first allowed hundreds of cable television channels to be accessible to the average American consumer in the 1990s, so each person could find political content addressed to their 24/7 world vision. The widespread adoption of the Internet, then of social media in the 2010s, exacerbated the problem.
Political comments on social networks have since become a full -fledged industry. In the United States, thousands of people are now financially encouraged to create engaging or provocative political content. This type of content is so abundant that it easily meets the daily needs of the average voter. Thus, they are not encouraged to “take a look” from their media echo rooms.
While staying in their information bubbles, any new development in the country is easily explained so that the user (and the voter) may feel that they should remain faithful to their political party.
Another explanation of the close results of recent American presidential elections is much more trivial: party colors. It was only for the 2000 elections that the media began to use the red color regularly to designate the republican party and the blue color to designate the Democratic Party. Before, the party colors were chosen arbitrarily for different graphics.
Take these images to cover the results of the 1992 presidential elections by NBC, for example. There, the Democratic candidate (and the possible winner) The States of Bill Clinton are marked in red, while the states of the Republican President George Hw Bush are marked in blue – which was exactly what the director’s choice was for the night.
Having certain colors is always affiliated to a political party encourages the tribal instinct of the voter, just as it does with sports teams. Thus, they are more emotionally attached to their own party and more emotionally against the opposing party, which obviously makes much less likely to vote in any election on the other side.
Related items:
