@@kaanpleb gore would have likely continued the policies of Clinton, which would likely cause 2008 to not be as bad. Gore would also make it so that our world is not pretty much on fire nowadays
To be fair, Connecticut wasn’t really a swing state in 1932, it was just super Republican in a year that was overwhelmingly Democratic, so they kinda canceled out.
I’m not sure “swing states” would be a correct term for most elections a century ago. But if it is, New England and (until 1932) all of the North and West almost always voted majority Republican. Aside from from Cleveland’s breakout and the three-way race in 1912, Democrats were typically confined to the South even when Republicans weren’t winning by huge margins outside of a small handful of states.
The only reason New England is blue today is mostly due to social issues.Back in the day when social issues weren't all that important, Republican Party was quite strong in the area.Calvin Coolidge for example was basically Trump without the mouth and he carried the whole region by 20-30 points.
@@LordKrhiyos And the funny thing is, that isn't even the closest states in Elections America ever had. The closet state (Not including Districts or Elections prior to the 12th Amendment) would be Delaware in 1852 with a difference of only 25 Votes! That is a larger than average classroom worth of voters! If you include Districts and Elections prior to the 12th Amendment, the winners are Maryland's 4th electoral district with 9 votes difference and North Carolina's Northampton electoral district with 14 vote difference. This was in 1800 by the way, when Elections were prior to the 12th Amendment. These three make what happen in Florida seem mild in comparison.
@@daviamarantelago1 Lol that has to be Kamala Harris, it's just American people became dumber and dumber with time so she did much better than McGovern. I'd take an anti-war Democrat but with small socialistic intentions over a maniac cackling woman that wants to start WW3 any day.
While I do think that was a factor, I think COVID was a bigger factor that year. Granted, I agree that without just either one of those factors, Trump would've won.
Very cool video, the smallest of differences in 1984 (Mondale being so close to losing all 50 states) and 2000 (A ballot design that may have cost the election) were fascinating.
I always felt bad for Mondale after learning that he later ran for Senate in Minnesota and lost, meaning that with it he lost an election in all 50 states (though in fairness, in the senate election he was actually a last-minute replacement after the previous candidate died in an airplane crash).
It was considered the big "Swing State" in 2004, as it was expected to be the closest there. And it was the closest that bush won. Needless to say it was kind of embarrassing that Kerry was so close to losing what was considered a safe blue state. And it would serve as a bit of a preview to what would happen in 2016.
Voting margin of the victor in the closest state of the election by year. 1928 - 0.61% 1932 - 1.14% 1936 - 1.75% 1940 - 0.33% 1944 - 0.36% 1948 - 0.24% 1952 - 0.07% 1956 - 0.22% 1960 - 0.06% 1964 - 1% 1968 - 1.13% 1972 - 5.51% 1976 - 0.16% 1980 - 0.15% 1984 - 0.18% 1988 - 1.59% 1992 - 0.59% 1996 - 0.96% 2000 - 0.009% 2004 - 0.38% 2008 - 0.13% 2012 - 0.88% 2016 - 0.23% 2020 - 0.23% 2024 - 0.86% A couple of things stand out. 1. Omfg did Nixon destroy in 1972. 2. Wow was Florida close in the year 2000. A 0.009% difference between the winner and loser!? 3. The closest state in almost every election is won with less then a 1% margin. 4. It'll be interesting to see if political polarization raises the margin of the closest decided election or not. We could easily cross the 1% mark in 2028 which means the closest state would be won by the largest margin since the 1988 election. 5. Even in blowout elections, there is always at least one state that is competitive (with the exception of 1972) 6. 1940-1960 is an interesting time-period. There wasn't a single election where the closest state was decided by a margin of greater then 0.4%. From this, I'd deduce that there was an above-average number of swing states during this time-period.
If the candidate had been Hillary, it would've gone to her, she would've won Montana too since she would've gotten a larger share of the white vote, whereas Obama was the only good candidate to win North Carolina since he got a much larger share of the black vote. It's possible too that if he'd targeted Georgia from the get go instead of worrying about the rust belt which was guaranteed to go blue due to the economic collapse, he'd have probably been able to win Georgia too. Everything is more obvious in hindsight
How is it that Hillary would’ve done so much better than Obama among white working-class voters in 2008 when she did historically badly among them eight years later? It’s not like they liked her in the 2016 race before Trump ran. Also Obama was still able to appeal to them pretty well which is why he got North and South Dakota to within single digits.
@@ethanbarnes7163 because the energy for Democrats was there because of the awful economic recession to a point where whether or not people like Hillary just didn't matter, in a neutral environment, Hillary loses big which we saw in 2016. There was still a lot of hesitation about Obama being the first black president because yes, some people are unfortunately very racist and voted against him on the sole prospect of him being black. It's not like McCain was a good candidate, neither was Sarah Palin. Back to the point, Hillary wouldn't have the racial baggage some white voters claim that Obama has so she would've gotten higher vote shares out of Montana and Missouri. Black turnout would've been down in 2008 had Hillary been the candidate too, this is the reason Georgia was competitive and north Carolina went blue
Sometimes I wonder if everyone else in world also looks at the US elections like a sporting event a tradition that happens every 4 years like the Olympics or the World Cup. I have no choice considering I was born on election day but the chaos is fun
Percentage difference makes far more sense, If California (hypothetically) was decided by 200 votes, it would be far more consequential than Vermont/Wyoming being decided by 199 votes due to the far larger population and more mammoth electoral votes (in California) that can swing elections.
@@lior995 I thought it would be Michigan because of the Rust Belt, it is the Rust Belt that has the largest percentage of its population being made up of black people, black people generally vote extremely Democratic, Besides the fact that in 2016 Michigan was the most competitive state, but I ended up making a mistake, I didn't imagine it would be Wisconsin
Hey, i have a yt channel as well but i want to improve my thumndails and i saw youre editing as well if youre willing can you tell me wich progam u use to make these video's and stuff?? Btw this is not my yt account
What did they do? They recounted the votes 3 times, and Bush won Florida every single time. The Supreme Court had to shut it down because it was getting stupid, and Democrats are still claiming they won the 2000 election. But then they blame Republicans for 2020. No logic.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Imagine being Mondale, you only win one single state, and you barely carry it by 4,000 votes.
Not to mention that Minnesota was his home state as well.
At least he carried Minnesota George McGovern couldn’t even carry South Dakota in 1972
Imagine being Goldwater who almost lost his home state Arizona. And lost massively with Jewish people.
Everyone forgets that Mondale also won D.C
Reagan didn't even campaign in Minnesota and almost won the state.
2024 ended up being Wisconsin I believe
Nixon’s victory over McGovern was so huge that even the closest state wasn’t even close.
I think it would've been bigger if the state that McGovern won was the closest one
Florida 2000 aka "lets fuck everything up by 500 votes"
cope gorecel
@@SjaeDanmark I dont think gore would have been good, I just think he would suck as much as bush
@@kaanpleb I think gore is very annoying to listen to so that already breaks the tie for me
@@kaanpleb gore would have likely continued the policies of Clinton, which would likely cause 2008 to not be as bad. Gore would also make it so that our world is not pretty much on fire nowadays
@@kaanpleb oh and also no Afghanistan war
It's incredible to think that there was a time where Rhode Island and Connecticut were Swing States.
And Hawai in 1960, that was a surprise!!!!
They weren't, those were wave elections where normally safe states were in play for the landslide victor.
To be fair, Connecticut wasn’t really a swing state in 1932, it was just super Republican in a year that was overwhelmingly Democratic, so they kinda canceled out.
I’m not sure “swing states” would be a correct term for most elections a century ago. But if it is, New England and (until 1932) all of the North and West almost always voted majority Republican. Aside from from Cleveland’s breakout and the three-way race in 1912, Democrats were typically confined to the South even when Republicans weren’t winning by huge margins outside of a small handful of states.
The only reason New England is blue today is mostly due to social issues.Back in the day when social issues weren't all that important, Republican Party was quite strong in the area.Calvin Coolidge for example was basically Trump without the mouth and he carried the whole region by 20-30 points.
New Mexico was also close in 2000. In terms of people that voted, it was closer than Florida. But Florida is closer in terms of percentage.
In fact, the difference between Gore and Bush was only 366 votes!
New Hampshire, Oregón, and Wisconsin too that year. 2000 was crazy
@@LordKrhiyos And the funny thing is, that isn't even the closest states in Elections America ever had. The closet state (Not including Districts or Elections prior to the 12th Amendment) would be Delaware in 1852 with a difference of only 25 Votes! That is a larger than average classroom worth of voters! If you include Districts and Elections prior to the 12th Amendment, the winners are Maryland's 4th electoral district with 9 votes difference and North Carolina's Northampton electoral district with 14 vote difference. This was in 1800 by the way, when Elections were prior to the 12th Amendment. These three make what happen in Florida seem mild in comparison.
@@SargentItaly I think Iowa had a congressional district decided by 5 or 6 votes in 2020. That was like 0.0001% or something
@@LordKrhiyos Wow! That is close. You can find more cans of Soda in a box at your local Dollar General than that!
in 2024 it was wisconsin, which was 49.7-48.8
The closest election in 1972 was still over 5 points. McGovern lost BAD
Mcgovern was the worst Democratic nominee ever
@@daviamarantelago1 Lol that has to be Kamala Harris, it's just American people became dumber and dumber with time so she did much better than McGovern.
I'd take an anti-war Democrat but with small socialistic intentions over a maniac cackling woman that wants to start WW3 any day.
at least McGovern won Massachusetts by 9%, Mondale only won Minnesota by 4000 votes
@@Unovey Mondale won more of the popular vote though. Reagans margins were quite thin in a few states
@@daviamarantelago1 electability? Maybe. Morally? The Democratic Party of the 1800s and very early 1900s were far worse.
Richard Nixon was intelligent, but he was also a corrupt scoundrel. But I'll say this for him: he had damn catchy campaign tunes.
Al Smith won both Rhode Island and Massachusetts in 1928 because being a Catholic against prohibition helped him in big cities
2024 turned out to be Wisconsin
2024: Pennsylvania
None of those
@@KidscommentaryehNo, Wisconsin was 0.9% and Pennsylvania was 1.7%. Wisconsin was much closer.
@@joshuakurian5994 Im not a time traveler🤦♀️
@@Kidscommentaryeh That was commented after the election
compare 1956 missouri to 2008 missouri. You can see both are close but there's a huge rural urban divide in 08
I mean Obama still did pretty alright in 08 rural areas, the true divide began with Trump.
I thought the closest in 2016 was New Hampshire. Hillary only won the state by about 3,000 votes.
I judge it based on the difference in vote share.
I find it hard to believe that Goldwater had a very hard time winning his home state in 1964 only to survive by a small margin.
I maintain if their hadn’t been mass mail in voting, Trump would have won 2020
While I do think that was a factor, I think COVID was a bigger factor that year.
Granted, I agree that without just either one of those factors, Trump would've won.
Very cool video, the smallest of differences in 1984 (Mondale being so close to losing all 50 states) and 2000 (A ballot design that may have cost the election) were fascinating.
I always felt bad for Mondale after learning that he later ran for Senate in Minnesota and lost, meaning that with it he lost an election in all 50 states (though in fairness, in the senate election he was actually a last-minute replacement after the previous candidate died in an airplane crash).
Surprised no Ohio in recent times
It was considered the big "Swing State" in 2004, as it was expected to be the closest there. And it was the closest that bush won. Needless to say it was kind of embarrassing that Kerry was so close to losing what was considered a safe blue state. And it would serve as a bit of a preview to what would happen in 2016.
They don’t have much reason to vote Democrat anymore
2000 was the tightest election in US history, if 300 people on Florida switch their vote to Gore he would of won the whole election.
Or if he bothered to campaign in New Hampshire he wouldn't have even needed Florida
2:53 that version of “I am just wild about Harry” is from the film the same roaring twenties starring James Cagney.
It’s also one of the songs from the Looney Tunes cartoon with the singing frog!
Growing up is realizing Gore would have been way worse than Bush
Voting margin of the victor in the closest state of the election by year.
1928 - 0.61%
1932 - 1.14%
1936 - 1.75%
1940 - 0.33%
1944 - 0.36%
1948 - 0.24%
1952 - 0.07%
1956 - 0.22%
1960 - 0.06%
1964 - 1%
1968 - 1.13%
1972 - 5.51%
1976 - 0.16%
1980 - 0.15%
1984 - 0.18%
1988 - 1.59%
1992 - 0.59%
1996 - 0.96%
2000 - 0.009%
2004 - 0.38%
2008 - 0.13%
2012 - 0.88%
2016 - 0.23%
2020 - 0.23%
2024 - 0.86%
A couple of things stand out.
1. Omfg did Nixon destroy in 1972.
2. Wow was Florida close in the year 2000. A 0.009% difference between the winner and loser!?
3. The closest state in almost every election is won with less then a 1% margin.
4. It'll be interesting to see if political polarization raises the margin of the closest decided election or not. We could easily cross the 1% mark in 2028 which means the closest state would be won by the largest margin since the 1988 election.
5. Even in blowout elections, there is always at least one state that is competitive (with the exception of 1972)
6. 1940-1960 is an interesting time-period. There wasn't a single election where the closest state was decided by a margin of greater then 0.4%. From this, I'd deduce that there was an above-average number of swing states during this time-period.
dont stop thinking about tomorrow
President Ford is missing from the thumbnail.
Probably because he was never elected President *_OR_* Vice President, for that matter. The only one in U.S. History.
@@GopherBaroque61No. Nelson Rockefeller wasn’t elected vice president either.
@@ash_11117 He didn't serve as President, though
Georgia in 1992 vs Georgia in 2020.
2024 is Wisconsin.
Closest state 2024:
Wisconsin - 10 Electoral Votes
🔴Donald Trump: 49.60% (1,697,626 votes)
🔵Kamala Harris: 48.74% (1,668,229 votes)
🔴0.86% difference (29,397 vote difference)
Came for the video, stayed for the music
Glad RI can be relevant again lol
Hawaii chose Kennedy by 115 votes
Make an updated one since it is 2024
Wisconsin
You got to love that Ford isn’t even on the thumbnail.
I think this year will be Arizona
Harris 49,50%
Trump 49,35%
I guess, don't hate me
I think it'll be North Carolina:
Harris/Walz will in by .1-2%. Arizona is probably going to be won by a point or 2.
Really plausible, especially how Trump alienated the McCain base
@@stevenplayzzz172 I guess when The Great John McCain passed away, good part of Republican in ARIZONA Party died with him
I think you’re bang on there.
@@tomaspunteriturriaga9625McCain ran on getting rid of Obamacare and when he won he voted to keep it.
McCain’s popularity only exists among liberals
What’s the name of Trump’s song?
I cannot find it no matter what I do
You used the old flag of Minnesota
Imagine Obama winning Missouri 😮
If the candidate had been Hillary, it would've gone to her, she would've won Montana too since she would've gotten a larger share of the white vote, whereas Obama was the only good candidate to win North Carolina since he got a much larger share of the black vote. It's possible too that if he'd targeted Georgia from the get go instead of worrying about the rust belt which was guaranteed to go blue due to the economic collapse, he'd have probably been able to win Georgia too. Everything is more obvious in hindsight
How is it that Hillary would’ve done so much better than Obama among white working-class voters in 2008 when she did historically badly among them eight years later? It’s not like they liked her in the 2016 race before Trump ran. Also Obama was still able to appeal to them pretty well which is why he got North and South Dakota to within single digits.
@@ethanbarnes7163 because the energy for Democrats was there because of the awful economic recession to a point where whether or not people like Hillary just didn't matter, in a neutral environment, Hillary loses big which we saw in 2016. There was still a lot of hesitation about Obama being the first black president because yes, some people are unfortunately very racist and voted against him on the sole prospect of him being black. It's not like McCain was a good candidate, neither was Sarah Palin. Back to the point, Hillary wouldn't have the racial baggage some white voters claim that Obama has so she would've gotten higher vote shares out of Montana and Missouri. Black turnout would've been down in 2008 had Hillary been the candidate too, this is the reason Georgia was competitive and north Carolina went blue
Kentucky voting Democrat. Wow.
It used to be safe dem.
Sometimes I wonder if everyone else in world also looks at the US elections like a sporting event a tradition that happens every 4 years like the Olympics or the World Cup. I have no choice considering I was born on election day but the chaos is fun
Eisenhower lost Kentucky?
Trumps campaign song ❤
You could put the difference of popular vote to make this video, but ok
Percentage difference makes far more sense, If California (hypothetically) was decided by 200 votes, it would be far more consequential than Vermont/Wyoming being decided by 199 votes due to the far larger population and more mammoth electoral votes (in California) that can swing elections.
Bro is first without realizing
@@TWBHunter_VR0604 I don't care much from being first or not
I’m obsessed with these campaign songs
esse ano vai ser michigan
It was the 2nd closest after Wisconsin
@@lior995 I thought it would be Michigan because of the Rust Belt, it is the Rust Belt that has the largest percentage of its population being made up of black people, black people generally vote extremely Democratic, Besides the fact that in 2016 Michigan was the most competitive state, but I ended up making a mistake, I didn't imagine it would be Wisconsin
Hey, i have a yt channel as well but i want to improve my thumndails and i saw youre editing as well if youre willing can you tell me wich progam u use to make these video's and stuff?? Btw this is not my yt account
the closest state will be pennsylvania in this cycle
I will never forgive the Supreme Court for what they did in 2000.
Then you an election denier just like Trump.
What did they do? They recounted the votes 3 times, and Bush won Florida every single time. The Supreme Court had to shut it down because it was getting stupid, and Democrats are still claiming they won the 2000 election. But then they blame Republicans for 2020. No logic.
My 2024? prediction is North Carolina, a state it's never been before.
Nah, Nevada, Arizona or PA. It will be Wild!!!!
@@joaquinescotoaleman4320Yeah If Joe Biden was still the nominee I would've easily said Minnesota but now I have no clue maybe Georgia
But after RFK withdrew from Swin States, Harris' margin is quickly diminishing there, giving USA a 45th and 47th President
Well it is Wisconsin, +0.9% Trump
In november you must update this video lol
2024. The closest state will be Oregon.
This is a bet put your own prediction down.
lol ok
Nevada or Arizona
Wisconsin
Pensilvânia
No way Oregon
1:55 Can anyone tell me the name of this song?
Skibidi dip dip yes yes remix
Does anyone know the name of this song??? 2:52
Go ask harry s Truman that question.
@@austinhendrickson5025 Get a job
2024 it will be PA Trump.
No
@@centuriongaming1866 GA or VA
2024 will be Pennsylvania
Missouri poor Truman it want after to the GOP.
Never forget Al Gore
Sanple Toyota Tacoma bimenca espre leoneli 500
You left out Harris winning NC by 257 votes in 2024
Edit: I feel shame all through my body
Also he left Orange Man making NY red by 400 votes
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Hawaii 4:45
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸