In 1984, Reagan won every state except Minnesota. In 1972 (ironically, all things considered) Nixon won every state except Massachusetts. In 1964 Johnson won all but six states (Arizona and 5 southern states).
Is that kind of landslide election still possible? We seem to have a large number of always-red and always-blue states, and only a relative handful of swing states. Even last time in 2012 when Obama won 332 to 206, there was still a huge swath of red states. And even this year, if you look at FiveThirtyEight’s Now-cast polling summary that has Trump with less than 5% chance of winning if the vote were held today, he still gets 153 electoral votes.
I guess my real question is: is there any conceivable presidential candidate who could overcome the current entrenched partisanship to win the opposite-colored states? Or any conceivable event that could encourage the country to rally behind someone in this way? (Let’s leave outright invasion or nuclear strikes out of this second question; while those are at least remotely possible I’d rather stay in the realm of the non-ending-life-as-we-know-it scenarios.)
If there was ever a year, this would be it. A hopelessly unqualified, crude-talking, blatantly-lying, mentally unstable candidate that his own party is struggling to get behind.
The fact that it’s still not lining up to look like a landslide tells me that we may never see something like that again. At least not a Democratic landslide.
That’s the beauty of the Electoral College and why it should be retained- it can take say a 55-45 difference in popular vote and turn it into a crushing landslide. Even a 52-48 popular vote differential will be a convincing mandate for the winner. Heaven help us if we ditch it and then have a razor-thin popular vote and endless recounts and lawsuits.
It all depends on your definition of a landslide, but I say no it won’t happen. There are states that you can color in red or blue for the next 5 elections and not miss one prediction. There are too many automatic wins for either side to get >400 EVs.
Sure, stuff like this could happen. If Donald Trump were to have a few more weeks like he did last week, it’s not inconceivable Clinton could win by eleven or twelve points and flip enough states to get 400 electoral votes. As it is, Trump’s assumed lead in Georgia and South Carolina is looking really shaky. A few more points and he could lose Texas.
Here is what the map could look like if Clinton wins by 12-14 points:
Hillary has high enough negatives to make it seem unlikely for this year. Still, Trump keeps doing his damnedest to give Hillary one. Depending on the number of states required to call it a landslide I can see it happening from a combination of low GOP turnout and GOP voters going 3rd party.
I’m so tempted to agree with this. But things have changed before, and despite how safe the bet seems, I just can’t quite commit to it. Certainly not for 5 elections - it’s 20 years, and so much could change.
But definitely for this election, barring an absolutely huge and very unrealistic surprise (one candidate discovered involved in a terrorist attack resulting in massive deaths on US soil, UFO shows up and aliens endorse one candidate, etc.), there won’t be a Reagan-sized landslide.
This race could go either in the direction of a landslide for Clinton (400+ EV) to an outright win by Donald Trump by the slimmest of margins or even a House vote. Both of these are unlikely, but still quite within the realm of possibility. Much of it depends on how well Trump can stay focused. If he can somehow stay relatively disciplined over the next 60 days and then do well in the debates, he could actually win. On the other hand, another meltdown like he had the past week or in June, and it’s not only over, but will probably enough to tip one of the houses in congress.
As TriPolar notes, that might work if there wasn’t so much (earned and unearned) Hillary hate. So this year seems unlikely. On the other hand, if the Democratic candidate were a white male, with the intellect and charisma of Obama and the warmth of Jimmy Carter, with an unobjectionable or even admirable record, probably could do it against an unrepentant Trump. That seems an unlikely combination of events to me.
Under present circumstances, how do we even address questions like “reasonable”? When a major party has gone totally batshit, what is sanity, any more? Is a total Dem landslide and masacree possible? Sure. Is it likely, probable, reasonable? Not sure those words have any meaning, right now.
I agree. In particular, Texas could turn decidedly Democratic within the next 5 elections because of latinos. I think Trump could be crystalizing that demographic’s loyalty to the Democratic Party far into the future. If Texas becomes lost to Republicans, it’s hard to see how they could win a nationwide election unless they find either a new base of support or a new line of propaganda.
Not in any realistic election. I think most of the south and the plains states will go red and the west coast, northern midwest and northeast will go blue for the next few election cycles.
This election cycle is seeing some deeply red states go purple. MS, GA, UT, etc.
However Trump will still win large swaths of the country. I think the country is too polarized for those kinds of landslides anymore. There isn’t as much party crossover as there was. In 1980 Reagan won 50% of the vote, in 1984 he won about 59%. I don’t see something like that happening now, where 9% of the electorate changes their mind in a re-election campaign.
The only way for a landslide to happen is either there are 2 parties and one gets about 60% of the vote, or there can be a third party spoiler who takes votes off the runner up party (50-40-10 split). The 1980 election was an EV blowout but the popular vote % was only 50 to 40 for Reagan vs Carter.
I do not see either party getting 60% of the vote except in extremely unlikely circumstances, I think the US is too polarized for this now.
Not really. FiveThirtyEight Nowcast is showing Hillary ahead by 10 points in the popular vote (50.1% vs. 40.8%) and even in this scenario, Trump wins 23 states (155 electoral votes).
If there was even a mediocre Republican running against Hillary it would be a landslide for Republican’s. Or if there were even a mediocre Democrat running against Trump it would be a landslide for the Democrats. But both candidates having such high disapproval numbers… I just don’t see a landslide.
You’re ignoring the fact that Hillary has significant liabilities herself, foremost of which are her large disapproval ratings. On top of that she is non-incumbent trying to hold the presidency for the same party for the third election in a row. A different candidate would likely do even better against Trump.
Where we’ve seen landslides in the recent past, it was an incumbent president running for re-election against a weak opponent. Even a relatively unpopular president with significant problems like Nixon was able to manage a landslide in those circumstances.
Polarization may make it somewhat more difficult for a landslide to occur today, but it’s not impossible. A popular incumbent with a good economy, an external threat, and a weak opponent could still do it.
Well then it sort of depends on the definition of landslide. Because I don’t ever see a Democrat pulling off Reagan '84 numbers, or Nixon '72 numbers. A Democratic incumbent with stellar approval ratings, going against a Trumpesque candidate, with the greatest economy this side of heaven, in the midst of a beloved war against Old Mr. Scratch hisself-- well, I just don’t seem him/her taking Idaho, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, etc.
Those four or five maybe not (Trump has a lead of 20% or so in those), but in most other red states Trump has a lead of 10% or less. Maybe a Nixon/Reagan type of sweep is unlikely, but I think a Johnson/FDR sweep of winning all but four or five states still is.
Talk about making silk purses from sows ears.
The triumvirate of EC, winner take all and FPTP don’t create crushing landslides, they create the fascade of a landslide. The consequence of which causes collective psephologic yips if the primary vote happens to actually get close.
It all works on the principle of conducting a very dodgy market survey on cigarette smoking:
First off only count those who smoke (vote)
Then you factor in the brand (candidate) with 40% market share in all states
Conclusion; Based on winner take all & first past the post
All Americans smoke Marlboro.(50 state win)
Well you didn’t handle the last close election very well with the EC in play.
But why would have the absence of an EC made it any worse?
Australia has just had an election where the government was elected with a single seat majority and one electorate was decided by 37 votes out of 105k. No EC, no necessity for the High (Supreme) Court to intervene, no civil disorder, negligible impact on the federal governance and done using pencils and paper.
Shithey, it’s not that difficult to do.
Would have thought that to claim pre-eminent status of world’s oldest democracy that the political system could handle an occasional close election.