…that’s exceedingly interesting, and neatly deflates the “Well, Candidate X can’t win because of [insert random bit of historical trivia here]” arguments that we get a lot. Well-played, although there’s a typo for 1800 and the forums are right: 1996 IS a slight stretch. Forgivable, to be sure.
The alliterative ticket of Stevenson and Sparkman was defeated in 1952.
Here are two potential history points for this election:
— No candidate has ever won an election while losing his home state. If Romney wins, he probably will break that streak.
— No incumbent has ever won a second term without winning a state that he didn’t win the first time. If Obama wins, he’ll likely break that streak.
Wilson won in 1916 while losing New Jersey.
The 1952 frame is incorrect. The GOP (barely) won both the House and Senate during Eisenhower’s victory year.
I stand corrected. Though Romney would be te first R to do it.
Munroe is usually pretty thorough on his research, I still cite his “radiation and bananas” bit at people who are worried about stuff like Fukushima but ignore that they live in brick houses. (people who live in brick houses shouldn’t throw gamma particles?)
.
http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/
.
We’re definitely gonna break some streaks with this regardless … but that’s a part of life. After all, nobody landed on the moon before Leslie LeCroix (erm.. Neil Armstrong), right?
.
Mew