Which of the following records will the 2012 election break?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Ones I think are likely in bold, ones I think are possible in bold and italics.

Absolute number of votes for a candidate:  69,499,428 (Obama 2008)
Absolute number of votes for a Republican:  62,040,610 (Bush 2004)
Absolute number of votes for a third-party candidate:  19,743,821 (Perot 1992)
Absolute number of votes for a Green:  2,883,105 (Nader 2000)
Absolute number of votes for a Libertarian:  921,128 (Clark 1980)
Absolute number of votes for the Constitution Party:  199,880 (Baldwin 2008)
Percentage of votes for a candidate:  61.05% (Johnson 1964)
Percentage of votes for a Republican:  60.67% (Nixon 1972)
Percentage of votes for a third-party candidate:  27.40% (Roosevelt 1912)
Percentage of votes for a Green:  2.73% (Nader 2000)
Percentage of votes for a Libertarian:  1.06% (Clark 1980)
Percentage of votes for the Constitution Party:  0.19% (Phillips 1996)
Absolute margin of victory:  17,995,488 (Nixon 1972)
Percent margin of victory:  26.17% (Harding 1920)
Lowest % for a major party candidate:  23.17% (Taft 1912)
Lowest % for a Democrat:  28.82% (Davis 1924)
Lowest % for a major party candidate in a two-candidate race:  34.15% (Cox 1920)
Lowest % for a Republican in a two-candidate race:  36.54% (Landon 1936)
Lowest % for a Green:  0.10% (Cobb 2004)
Lowest % for a Libertarian post-1972:  0.21% (MacBride 1976)
Lowest % for the Constitution Party:  0.04% (Phillips 1992)
Highest number of states won:  49 (Nixon 1972, Reagan 1984)
Highest number of states won by a Democrat:  46 (Roosevelt 1936)
Highest number of states won by a third-party candidate:  11 (Breckinridge 1860)
Highest number of electoral votes won:  525 (Reagan 1984)
Highest number of electoral votes won by a Democrat:  523 (Roosevelt 1936)
Highest number of electoral votes won by a third-party candidate:  88 (Roosevelt 1912)
Highest number of electoral votes won by a Libertarian:  1 (Hospers 1972)
Lowest number of electoral votes won by a major-party candidate:  8 (Taft 1912, Landon 1936)
Lowest number of electoral votes won by a Democrat:  13 (Mondale 1984)

[ModerateCoward]

I think topping Obama's 2008 turnout would prove to be challenging.

[zorkpolitics]

One prediction stands out as absurd:

Absolute margin of victory:  17,995,488 (Nixon 1972)

No way Obama nearly doubles his 2008 margin, nor is Mitt likley to even match Obama's 2008 margin

[crypto-fascist superhero]

I'm saying that's unlikely but possible.  It'd probably be a 12-13 point victory that would produce that large a margin.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

No way Obama nearly doubles his 2008 margin, nor is Mitt likley to even match Obama's 2008 margin

He he. He said "mitt".

Aahaha.

[ModerateCoward]

Lol @ those thinking that Mitt can top Mccain's votes by more than 1-3 million. His base is dying faster than it's being replaced. He can maybe swing a negligible number of independents, but certainly not raise the turnout. The question is whether Obama can GOTV this election.

[hopper]

Number of people as a % that actually turnout. The Presidential Election turnout % wise has been up every year since 1992. The Presidential Election nowadays is an event like the Super Bowl!

[a Person]

The Presidential Election nowadays is an event like the Super Bowl!

This is what's wrong with America.

[politicus]

Lowest % for a Green:  0.10% (Cobb 2004). This is weird. Jill Stein is not that bad a campaigner and plenty of people will want a left wing alternative to Obama. He has proven to be significantly more to the right than many of his 2008 supporters expected.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

These are the only that wouldn't shock me, and they quite likely wouldn't happen. Gary Johnson breaking 921,128 votes is the most likely.

Absolute number of votes for a Republican:  62,040,610 (Bush 2004)
Absolute number of votes for a Libertarian:  921,128 (Clark 1980)
Absolute number of votes for the Constitution Party:  199,880 (Baldwin 2008)
Percentage of votes for a Libertarian:  1.06% (Clark 1980)
Percentage of votes for the Constitution Party:  0.19% (Phillips 1996)

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Not that anyone's said anything about it, but I will clarify re my saying Johnson *could* get electoral votes isn't because of winning a state (lol, not happening) but because of the Ron Paul state party takeovers.

[cope1989]

Number of people as a % that actually turnout. The Presidential Election turnout % wise has been up every year since 1992. The Presidential Election nowadays is an event like the Super Bowl!

One thing foreigners tell me about their impression of American presidential elections is what a spectacle they are. Yeah, Europe beats us in turnout, but no election anywhere has the same amount of sheer entertainment and spectacle a US presidential election has. Our campaign season lasts almost an entire year while many European campaigns will last less than a month. And the money both parties spend is unheard of in most other countries. 50-60% of Americans may vote but you can bet that 100% of us are forcibly exposed to the elections whether we like it or not.

Not sure if I'm proud of ashamed of this.

[politicus]

Number of people as a % that actually turnout. The Presidential Election turnout % wise has been up every year since 1992. The Presidential Election nowadays is an event like the Super Bowl!

One thing foreigners tell me about their impression of American presidential elections is what a spectacle they are. Yeah, Europe beats us in turnout, but no election anywhere has the same amount of sheer entertainment and spectacle a US presidential election has. Our campaign season lasts almost an entire year while many European campaigns will last less than a month. And the money both parties spend is unheard of in most other countries. 50-60% of Americans may vote but you can bet that 100% of us are forcibly exposed to the elections whether we like it or not.

Not sure if I'm proud of ashamed of this.

It sure looks like a giant waste of resources to us outsiders. What possible reasons could there be to be proud of it? (honestly curious)
To me the whole point of campaigns is to get people to vote (for your candidate obviously) and given the low US turnout, the extremely long and costly campaigns and all the showmanship involved in them seems almost counterproductive. Would the turnout even be significantly lower with a short euro-style 4 week campaign?

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

Number of people as a % that actually turnout. The Presidential Election turnout % wise has been up every year since 1992. The Presidential Election nowadays is an event like the Super Bowl!

One thing foreigners tell me about their impression of American presidential elections is what a spectacle they are. Yeah, Europe beats us in turnout, but no election anywhere has the same amount of sheer entertainment and spectacle a US presidential election has. Our campaign season lasts almost an entire year while many European campaigns will last less than a month. And the money both parties spend is unheard of in most other countries. 50-60% of Americans may vote but you can bet that 100% of us are forcibly exposed to the elections whether we like it or not.

Not sure if I'm proud of ashamed of this.

It sure looks like a giant waste of resources to us outsiders. What possible reasons could there be to be proud of it? (honestly curious)
To me the whole point of campaigns is to get people to vote (for your candidate obviously) and given the low US turnout, the extremely long and costly campaigns and all the showmanship involved in them seems almost counterproductive. Would the turnout even be significantly lower with a short euro-style 4 week campaign?

But we need our soap operas...

[cope1989]

Number of people as a % that actually turnout. The Presidential Election turnout % wise has been up every year since 1992. The Presidential Election nowadays is an event like the Super Bowl!

One thing foreigners tell me about their impression of American presidential elections is what a spectacle they are. Yeah, Europe beats us in turnout, but no election anywhere has the same amount of sheer entertainment and spectacle a US presidential election has. Our campaign season lasts almost an entire year while many European campaigns will last less than a month. And the money both parties spend is unheard of in most other countries. 50-60% of Americans may vote but you can bet that 100% of us are forcibly exposed to the elections whether we like it or not.

Not sure if I'm proud of ashamed of this.

It sure looks like a giant waste of resources to us outsiders. What possible reasons could there be to be proud of it? (honestly curious)
To me the whole point of campaigns is to get people to vote (for your candidate obviously) and given the low US turnout, the extremely long and costly campaigns and all the showmanship involved in them seems almost counterproductive. Would the turnout even be significantly lower with a short euro-style 4 week campaign?

As you may or may not know, Americans tend to be proud of things people from any other country would be ashamed of. It's the "I'm American f*** you" attitude. For instance, we have an unnatural attachment to inhuman portions of greasy, cholesterol laden foods. A lot of Americans are proud of the amount of people we execute on death row. Remember Rick Perry at the GOP debate last fall? And we subsidize the exorbitant lifestyles of worthless socialites like Kim Kardashian by watching their reality shows and even buying god awful merchandise they slapped their name onto.

And as much as people complain about mud slinging in presidential elections, we can't get enough.

[politicus]

Lowest % for a Green:  0.10% (Cobb 2004). This is weird. Jill Stein is not that bad a campaigner and plenty of people will want a left wing alternative to Obama. He has proven to be significantly more to the right than many of his 2008 supporters expected.

Its bad form to quote yourself, but Ill do it anyway, since I am honestly curious about this one.
Why do you think she should go that low? She is the only left wing alternative to Obama and there are tons of frustrated leftwingers out there.

[a Person]

Lowest % for a Green:  0.10% (Cobb 2004). This is weird. Jill Stein is not that bad a campaigner and plenty of people will want a left wing alternative to Obama. He has proven to be significantly more to the right than many of his 2008 supporters expected.

Its bad form to quote yourself, but Ill do it anyway, since I am honestly curious about this one.
Why do you think she should go that low? She is the only left wing alternative to Obama and there are tons of frustrated leftwingers out there.

[Sad Rocky Anderson is sad]

[politicus]

Ok, there is Rocky Anderson. But how many states does  this guy actually have ballot access in?

[a Person]

Ok, there is Rocky Anderson. But how many states does  this guy actually have ballot access in?

It depends on whether AmericansElect get their act together.

[hopper]

Number of people as a % that actually turnout. The Presidential Election turnout % wise has been up every year since 1992. The Presidential Election nowadays is an event like the Super Bowl!

One thing foreigners tell me about their impression of American presidential elections is what a spectacle they are. Yeah, Europe beats us in turnout, but no election anywhere has the same amount of sheer entertainment and spectacle a US presidential election has. Our campaign season lasts almost an entire year while many European campaigns will last less than a month. And the money both parties spend is unheard of in most other countries. 50-60% of Americans may vote but you can bet that 100% of us are forcibly exposed to the elections whether we like it or not.

Not sure if I'm proud of ashamed of this.

It sure looks like a giant waste of resources to us outsiders. What possible reasons could there be to be proud of it? (honestly curious)
To me the whole point of campaigns is to get people to vote (for your candidate obviously) and given the low US turnout, the extremely long and costly campaigns and all the showmanship involved in them seems almost counterproductive. Would the turnout even be significantly lower with a short euro-style 4 week campaign?

As you may or may not know, Americans tend to be proud of things people from any other country would be ashamed of. It's the "I'm American f*** you" attitude. For instance, we have an unnatural attachment to inhuman portions of greasy, cholesterol laden foods. A lot of Americans are proud of the amount of people we execute on death row. Remember Rick Perry at the GOP debate last fall? And we subsidize the exorbitant lifestyles of worthless socialites like Kim Kardashian by watching their reality shows and even buying god awful merchandise they slapped their name onto.

And as much as people complain about mud slinging in presidential elections, we can't get enough.

On Kim Kardashian, I'm sick of her. When I am in the check out line at Target or Shoprite I see her face or her sisters face on every magazine.

Your right though I want to eat what I want to eat and I am not obese or fat either from my eating habits!

By the way other countries treat their women like its the 1800's with stuff like Sharia Law. Women can't wear shorts in some countries. I have heard they can't drive a car either in some countries. So don't you think those countries should be ashamed of the way they treat their woman?

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

Number of people as a % that actually turnout. The Presidential Election turnout % wise has been up every year since 1992. The Presidential Election nowadays is an event like the Super Bowl!

One thing foreigners tell me about their impression of American presidential elections is what a spectacle they are. Yeah, Europe beats us in turnout, but no election anywhere has the same amount of sheer entertainment and spectacle a US presidential election has. Our campaign season lasts almost an entire year while many European campaigns will last less than a month. And the money both parties spend is unheard of in most other countries. 50-60% of Americans may vote but you can bet that 100% of us are forcibly exposed to the elections whether we like it or not.

Not sure if I'm proud of ashamed of this.

It sure looks like a giant waste of resources to us outsiders. What possible reasons could there be to be proud of it? (honestly curious)
To me the whole point of campaigns is to get people to vote (for your candidate obviously) and given the low US turnout, the extremely long and costly campaigns and all the showmanship involved in them seems almost counterproductive. Would the turnout even be significantly lower with a short euro-style 4 week campaign?

As you may or may not know, Americans tend to be proud of things people from any other country would be ashamed of. It's the "I'm American f*** you" attitude. For instance, we have an unnatural attachment to inhuman portions of greasy, cholesterol laden foods. A lot of Americans are proud of the amount of people we execute on death row. Remember Rick Perry at the GOP debate last fall? And we subsidize the exorbitant lifestyles of worthless socialites like Kim Kardashian by watching their reality shows and even buying god awful merchandise they slapped their name onto.

And as much as people complain about mud slinging in presidential elections, we can't get enough.

On Kim Kardashian, I'm sick of her. When I am in the check out line at Target or Shoprite I see her face or her sisters face on every magazine.

Your right though I want to eat what I want to eat and I am not obese or fat either from my eating habits!

By the way other countries treat their women like its the 1800's with stuff like Sharia Law. Women can't wear shorts in some countries. I have heard they can't drive a car either in some countries. So don't you think those countries should be ashamed of the way they treat their woman?

...What?

[Emperor SJoyce]

Number of people as a % that actually turnout. The Presidential Election turnout % wise has been up every year since 1992. The Presidential Election nowadays is an event like the Super Bowl!

One thing foreigners tell me about their impression of American presidential elections is what a spectacle they are. Yeah, Europe beats us in turnout, but no election anywhere has the same amount of sheer entertainment and spectacle a US presidential election has. Our campaign season lasts almost an entire year while many European campaigns will last less than a month. And the money both parties spend is unheard of in most other countries. 50-60% of Americans may vote but you can bet that 100% of us are forcibly exposed to the elections whether we like it or not.

Not sure if I'm proud of ashamed of this.

It sure looks like a giant waste of resources to us outsiders. What possible reasons could there be to be proud of it? (honestly curious)
To me the whole point of campaigns is to get people to vote (for your candidate obviously) and given the low US turnout, the extremely long and costly campaigns and all the showmanship involved in them seems almost counterproductive. Would the turnout even be significantly lower with a short euro-style 4 week campaign?

As you may or may not know, Americans tend to be proud of things people from any other country would be ashamed of. It's the "I'm American f*** you" attitude. For instance, we have an unnatural attachment to inhuman portions of greasy, cholesterol laden foods. A lot of Americans are proud of the amount of people we execute on death row. Remember Rick Perry at the GOP debate last fall? And we subsidize the exorbitant lifestyles of worthless socialites like Kim Kardashian by watching their reality shows and even buying god awful merchandise they slapped their name onto.

And as much as people complain about mud slinging in presidential elections, we can't get enough.

On Kim Kardashian, I'm sick of her. When I am in the check out line at Target or Shoprite I see her face or her sisters face on every magazine.

Your right though I want to eat what I want to eat and I am not obese or fat either from my eating habits!

By the way other countries treat their women like its the 1800's with stuff like Sharia Law. Women can't wear shorts in some countries. I have heard they can't drive a car either in some countries. So don't you think those countries should be ashamed of the way they treat their woman?

...What?

He said he eats what he wants to eat and is ashamed that other countries make their women consume specific 1800s dietary items, such as cars and shorts, which they can eat in America and not become obese/fat. Also, Kim Kardashian is sick, according to the "Sharia Law" magazine at Target (or Shoprite).

[cope1989]

Maybe I should further explain. Every country engages in cultures and practices that people from other countries disapprove of. It's cultural differences. But you have to admit that in the US, we tend to have that inferiority complex that keeps us from feeling ashamed when our way of life is criticized. In fact, we often become emboldened to keep doing it to spite other people.

I'd say I'm guilty of this. I truly believe that the US still holds outdated ideals that have been completely wiped out from most other industrialized countries, like the death penalty for instance. Or the fact that a nationalized healthcare system is still viewed with such fear in America, when it has been implemented successfully in the rest of the first world. I mean, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is weak sauce, it does nothing but hand over millions of new customers to the insurance industry, and the tea party acts like we're the Soviet Union now. Give me a break.

Ok, ok, I'm getting off topic. My point is that while I recognize our shortcomings, it just pisses me off when Europeans try to bring them up. Their clucking disapproval is just so smug and insincere. Like deep down, they're so happy that they can still feel superior to us.

Or when they try to convince me that things are so much more "evolved" in Europe. Sorry, but sitting around at a cozy brasserie on your two week vacation with your copy of Rousseau doesn't make your entire continent more evolved. Racism still exists there and it's a huge problem. I couldn't believe it when the French government tried to ban Hijabs in the name of liberalism, like they were trying to rescue Muslim women from oppression. No, it was a thinly veiled attempt to protect french tradition and culture, which many think Muslim immigrants are threatening to dismantle. I just hate the hypocrisy.

Sorry for the rant folks, I know I went way off topic. I guess the overall point is that inefficiency in the democratic process exists everywhere, so one should not be so quick to label our elections as a sideshow based on the sheer spectacle of them. Elections still matter here.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Ok, ok, I'm getting off topic. My point is that while I recognize our shortcomings, it just pisses me off when Europeans try to bring them up. Their clucking disapproval is just so smug and insincere. Like deep down, they're so happy that they can still feel superior to us.

Don't know if you saw the window thread over in FC, but it's almost exactly what you're talking about here. Its basic premise is:

"Look at these silly Americans! They use windows that go UPWARDS and DOWNWARDS (caps in original), instead of swinging inside like our sophisticated windows. They don't even have any 'gekippt'. When you open an American window, it is only 50% open and you have to bend your head to stick it out a window. Their windows are really pointless, much like having separate water faucets and other silly things Americans do."

[politicus]

Maybe I should further explain. Every country engages in cultures and practices that people from other countries disapprove of. It's cultural differences. But you have to admit that in the US, we tend to have that inferiority complex that keeps us from feeling ashamed when our way of life is criticized. In fact, we often become emboldened to keep doing it to spite other people.

I'd say I'm guilty of this. I truly believe that the US still holds outdated ideals that have been completely wiped out from most other industrialized countries, like the death penalty for instance. Or the fact that a nationalized healthcare system is still viewed with such fear in America, when it has been implemented successfully in the rest of the first world. I mean, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is weak sauce, it does nothing but hand over millions of new customers to the insurance industry, and the tea party acts like we're the Soviet Union now. Give me a break.

Ok, ok, I'm getting off topic. My point is that while I recognize our shortcomings, it just pisses me off when Europeans try to bring them up. Their clucking disapproval is just so smug and insincere. Like deep down, they're so happy that they can still feel superior to us.

Or when they try to convince me that things are so much more "evolved" in Europe. Sorry, but sitting around at a cozy brasserie on your two week vacation with your copy of Rousseau doesn't make your entire continent more evolved. Racism still exists there and it's a huge problem. I couldn't believe it when the French government tried to ban Hijabs in the name of liberalism, like they were trying to rescue Muslim women from oppression. No, it was a thinly veiled attempt to protect french tradition and culture, which many think Muslim immigrants are threatening to dismantle. I just hate the hypocrisy.

Sorry for the rant folks, I know I went way off topic. I guess the overall point is that inefficiency in the democratic process exists everywhere, so one should not be so quick to label our elections as a sideshow based on the sheer spectacle of them. Elections still matter here.

Just for the record, I have nothing gainst the American electoral proces and I dont view it as inferior, just inefficient in a purely cost/benefit sense. I was merely surprised to see it mentioned as something to be proud of as opposed to viewing in a neutral way.