I think it goes beyond the media.

[Drunken Irishman]

The popular vote has been fairly close in the past five elections, even dating back to Bush's stomping over Dukakis in 1988. Remember, Bush only managed to defeat Dukakis by 7-points nationally. A comfortable win, no doubt, but not the same level of blowout we witnessed in the electoral college, or even four years earlier, when Reagan beat Mondale by 18-points.

In fact, since Eisenhower's solid margins in both his elections, there have only been three true blowout general election wins (when you take both the popular vote and the electoral college). These elections had unique situations that ultimately made the climate possible for blowouts:

1964

As tacky as it sounds, Johnson was assured an election win the second Kennedy died. That was a big reason why he won in November 1964, but also his campaign was aided by the perception Goldwater was just to the right of Attila the Hun. Regardless of Goldwater, though, Johnson was going to easily win that election unless he had an epic meltdown.

1972

Nixon was a popular incumbent, however, his re-election wasn't a given until McGovern botched the whole Eagleton affair. On top of that, McGovern allowed himself to be defined as a near-extremist, even though I think most would agree he wasn't. That ultimately allowed Nixon to easily win re-election.

1984

Reagan had a decent foundation of support because he was a semi-popular president, which helped greatly in his re-election bid. He also benefited from the fact Mondale was a joke. His campaign was embarrassingly bad and the final straw was not only his own blunders (declaring he would raise taxes), but Ferraro's husband and his tax issues. It was a nightmare from the start for the Democrats, but an election they would have definitely made closer had they run a better candidate.

All these elections have one thing in common: The blowout winner was the incumbent. Johnson might have been finishing out Kennedy's first term, but he was an incumbent. The closest a non-incumbent got to a blowout in the popular vote since the 1960 election was Reagan's 9.7 percentage victory over Carter in 1980. I guess one could technically call this a blowout, but it does not compare to the above elections, as Reagan barely got over 50% of the vote, whereas the other elections saw each candidate come close to, or pass, 60%.

In every other election, the results have been competitive in the popular vote, regardless of how they turned out in the electoral college. I believe this has happened because America has become more and more partisan and it began in the 1960s. It isn't a surprise that prior to that the elections were often blowouts. FDR won every election by a high number, managing an 8-point win in his final fourth term, the most controversial and closest of his presidency. Hoover beat Al Smith by 17, Coolidge's closest foe, John W. Davis, came within 26 points of him in 1924. Warren Harding beat James Cox by 26 points in 1920. Now compare those results to every election since 1960, you're just not seeing the type of blowout you saw prior to the 60s and I think it's all because America unfortunately became far more divided ideologically.

Now one could blame the media for this, but it just isn't that easy. Bill Clinton killed Bush I in the electoral college, but only managed to win the popular vote by 4-points. Even as an incumbent, he still only won re-election by 8-points. A victory that more mirrors Bush's in 1988 than Reagan's in 1984.

What I'm trying to say is that this election will be close in the popular vote and the polls will show this. I do not believe it's because the media is totally manipulating the polls for either ratings or to help the GOP. It might play a role, however, the ultimate issue here is the fact we have been a nation divided for a very long time and Obama might be able to bridge that gap, but it's going to take action and not just a campaign to do this. If Obama wins, which I expect, he'll probably dominate the electoral college, but expect a tight popular vote race. I'm thinking 5 or so points. Something I've said much of this campaign.

[grantcart]

1. Dear Irishman

I have to disagree that Nixon was popular. Even among his supporters who thought he was a good President he was not liked.

The rest of the country had varying degrees of tolerance ranging from - will vote for him because he is a SOB and that's what we need to can't stantd him.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Thank you.

I was not around in 1972, so I do not know how the election really played out. I do know McGovern had a chance to defeat Nixon, but the whole Eagleton thing really did him in.

[grantcart]

4. Well no McGovern never had a chance.

For a modern comparison he would be like Kucinich only weaker.

Eagleton was astonishing and painful but the campaign was taken over by super activists. I was only 18 at the time and we were all going to work and vote for him but I remember one of the older volunteers reading his plans for a huge estate tax and saying something to the effect that "if he rebounds in the polls and it gets close the Republicans have a mountain of stuff to destroy us with".

At the time I was a certified vote registrar and I would make a quarter for every person I registered. I would go to the supermarkets and shopping centers with my table and little portable typewriter and I could smash out a registration in about one and 1/2 minutes and would make $ 10 per hour when the minimum wage was $ 1.30.

The people would line up and stand quietly - like a funeral or something - and wait for 30 or 40 minutes in line. It was astonishing. People were either completely motivated to stop the war or to stop McGovern, nobody was undecided in that election.

Finally the break in to the Watergate Office Complex occurred before the election. McGovern openly accussed Nixon of doing it and everyone assumed that he had but no proof had come out but even with that no one really trusted the kind and warm hearted McGovern as having a tough enough bearing to be President.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. This needs to be its own thread.

For people attacking Obama for being too moderate, they need to hear this story. It's easy forget how much Nixon easily painted McGovern as a left loon and it worked. Any time you're flanked to the extremes of the ideological line, you're in trouble.

[AndyTiedye]

3. Unfortunately, 5 Points is Close Enough to Steal