In 1992 Ross Perot had something like 20% of the vote. It is certainly debatable whether Perot peeled enough votes from HW Bush to cost him the election, although he also probably brought out a lot of people who wouldn't have voted otherwise. Perot did not do nearly that well in 1996, but Clinton still won the Presidency with significantly less that 50% of the vote.

Mine was one of them....TWICE!

I read that Perot took voters evenly from Clinton and Bush but I just want to note that you cannot draw the conclusion that all of Perot's voters would have gone out to vote if he wasn't running, in fact, you cannot even conclude what % of Perot voters would have gone out to vote if he wasn't running.
I might be tough on Clinton by pointing this out, but if you start assuming that Perot voters would have gone out to vote in a 50/50 split, the scenario becomes that instead of holding the record for lest % voters in modern history it becomes that no democrat has increased in popularity during their presidency in modern history.... Pick your poison.

Since democrats historically only get one shot, you can say that if you look at first term presidents they have higher turnout than republicans:
This is a List of the First term elections:

LOWEST - (D) Bill Clinton 1992 - 23.7 % of eligible votes.
(R) George W. Bush 2000 - 24.09 % of eligible votes.
(D) Harry Truman 1948 - 25.3 % of eligible votes.
(R) Richard Nixon 1968 - 26.3 % of eligible votes.
(R) Ronald Reagan 1980 - 26.82 % of eligible votes.
(D) Jimmy Carter 1976 - 26.85 % of eligible votes.
(R) George H. W. Bush 1988 - 26.86 % of eligible votes.
(D) Franklin D. Roosevelt 1932 - 30.19 % of eligible votes.
(D) Barack Obama 2008 - 30.2 % of eligible votes.
(D) John F. Kennedy 1960 - 31.2 % of eligible votes.
(R) Dwight D. Eisenhower 1952 - 34 % of eligible votes.
HIGHEST (D) Lyndon B. Johnson 1964 - 37.5 % of eligible votes.

This dramatically changes the picture... Which makes this next election all the more important, since republicans tend to increase in popularity as they run for re-election.

JFK was killed near the end of November 1963. 1968 was an election year. Johnson, only recently a Vice President, got the largest popular vote margin in US Presidential election history. You can't attribute it just to his having been a generic VP because Nixon, a two term VP in one of the most popular administrations in history, had lost to Kennedy only four years earlier.

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?4379-The-Democratic-Party-ends-pesky-Party-democracy-Part-Four-of-a-Series

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?4578-The-Democratic-Party-ends-pesky-Party-democracy-Part-Six-of-a-Series

The most consistent and crushingly popular candidate since WW2 is definitely Dwight D. Eisenhower....
But I still find it fascinating that Dems have the top and the bottom and that Dem presidents seem to do worse when going for re-election (not that there's a big sample size) while republicans seem to do A LOT better when running for re-election.
FDR was the last consistently popular and performing Dem president... that's sad.

BTW, most (not anti-progressivism) historians feel Truman was a very good president in many ways, would have even been great if not for Korea. Big if-not-for, of course. Interesting post, in any case. Thanks, PeterGM.

That it goes to show how little of the actual electorate you need to win a presidential race in the US.... This is why I believe that Trump stands a real chance....

NEEDS to come out in droves in November.

Same-old, same-old.

I'd be interested in knowing what percentage might not vote for reasonable reasons.
* Sickness, physical debility.
* Logistic issues. Unexpectedly can't get there. Car problems, weather, etc.
* Conflicting responsibilities. Mom gets sick.
* Went senile/just got "too old" since last election
* Registration problems. Ballot doesn't arrive at new home.
* Conscientious objection to all choices, or democracy (abstention AS voting).
* All ballot choices expected to win anyway -- in these days when people increasingly just vote their party, this number is probably rising significantly. (Our own votes are virtually totally symbolic in the dark-reddest part of a red state. We vote the primaries especially to vote against the worst of the choices, but the worst always win - thus the "virtually.&quot

Before I bother feeling too "sad," I'd like a fairly reliable idea of what this percentage would tend to be in most elections. Then I could subtract that and frown about the others.