I don't think people have internalized how large Biden's popular vote victory was. It's a historic repudiation of a sitting president.https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1329678134170382336 …
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
Well, not like ‘32. And, for that matter, Clinton beat GHW Bush by a a bigger margin in ‘92. So decisive, but not historic in any sense.
4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Reagan beat Carter by 8.4 million votes, and that was in a lower-turnout election when the country had 100 million fewer people living in it than 2020.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DavidAstinWalsh @HeerJeet
I’m just going by % margin of victory. Number of votes margin is obviously biased by population increase.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I think Jeet has a case insofar as Biden is the first candidate to topple an incumbent without a substantive third-party intervention in the race since '32. There was Perot in '92. There was Anderson in '80. (Though Carter still would have lost.) There was Wallace in '68.
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @DavidAstinWalsh @yeselson
Yeah, the absence of any strong 3rd party (and the highest turnout in more than a century) really makes this seem on a different scale. I grant 1932 was larger (main 3rd party then was communists, who obviously didn't take from Hoover).
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Socialists did 8 times better than Communists in 1932.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Brain glitch! I got the communist and socialist results mixed. Still, both got their peak or nearly so.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.