I’m thinking Avalanche Victory.
Overton Window.
Best example is same-sex marriage; an extreme position 70 years ago (if even existent at all) but now mainstream, while opposing gay marriage is increasingly a fringe view.
While landslide and huge are not quantified, they are most quantifiable. I would argue that in my life there have been only two landslides, Johnson over Goldwater, and Nixon over McGovern. (Reagan over Mondale came close.) Viewed through that lens, trump’s “victory” does not qualify.
And that whole “beating expectations” thing only applies during the primary season.
The Electoral College normally does not contradict the popular vote, but normally magnifies it so that a few points of advantage in the popular can be reflected by a significant Electoral Vote advantage. (This is far more typical of what happens in a normal election.)
OP’s argument seems to be that incumbents can’t lose and constituents don’t change their minds. I’m sure this is a great reassurance to LBJ and Jimmy Carter.
The Democrats, or possibly an independent, can win, with the right organization and message. Politics is about *changing *minds.
Where on the ballot was the “minus one vote for Trump”? My state doesn’t have that. We vote for candidates here.
Because they have additional data.
Now, if you’re laughing at these clowns for thinking there are still free and fair elections in the USA, I’m right there with you, pal.
Wow. Your…bias…is showing.
It appears we’ve reached a new ‘alternative fact.’ The winner got 46% of the popular vote, didn’t even beat his major opponent, and won in a landslide? Sorry, but you know exactly where you can put your revisionist history.
Bullshit. Conservatism is about keeping what you’ve got and preventing anyone else from having the chance to do the same. Status quo.
How 'bout that conservative (attempted) repeal of Obamacare and pretty much every policy he ever put into place? Are you seriously suggesting that single payer or any other kind of universal health care is OK with conservatives, or ever will be? How about doing everything possible to isolate the country from the world? Give me a break.
Tell me another fairy tale, grandma.
Really? I quite openly stated Trump’s victory was not a landslide, but that it was far closer to a landslide than just about anyone predicted before the event. I don’t think that is too biased. The world is full of ifs and buts; however, I really don’t think it too biased for me to point out that a win in Minnesota, or further Clinton coughing fit, or a newly discovered Clinton email or two would have delivered a loosely defined Trump landslide. That was part of Adams’ narrative; that Clinton had far more vulnerabilities as an aging and ill campaigner with multiple scandal issues in her closet. An aging campaigner with scandal issues also describes Trump rather well, but Trump had steamrollered over most of those issues surrounding him. Clinton’s steamroller had left the road rather more bumpier behind her than Trump had.
Moderating
Do not direct the phrase “alternative fact” at another poster.
This sort of action will soon begin attracting Warnings.
[ /Moderating ]
Who is “anyone” and how far before the event? The prediction poll numbers were very good, nationally, and even in the tipping states they were within the margin of error for a poll.
Was the victory a surprise? Yes. However, it was not remotely “closer to a landslide” when compared to reputable pollsters’ predictions.
This appears to be some odd pseudo-definition taken from some left wing alternative dictionary.
Teddy Roosevelt was a conservative who included a number of progressive stands on conservation. Nixon was a conservative who supported environmental standards. Eisenhower was a conservative who supported racial equality. Bricker is a conservative who supported same sex marriage years before Obergefell v. Hodges was decided.
Partisan name-calling does nothing to promote the discussion, but if one feels the need to resort to that sort of thing, one should at least get ones facts straight.
What **iiandyiiii **said.
If the Patriots crush the Browns 63-0, it’s a lopsided rout. If the Browns crush the Patriots 63-0, it’s a lopsided rout. “Favored” doesn’t matter.
What you are suggesting is electoral affirmative action.
I said almost anyone. This gives me some leeway in my claim that few predicted even a near landslide for Trump. Please, quote me correctly from now on when you are trying to nitpick an unimportant point.
The tipping states were not within the margin of error; some were and some were not. Plus, eggheads were telling us if we conflated poll averages this would make them oh so reliable. I said nothing about comparing pollsters predictions of a Clinton win with a near landslide Trump victory. I believe that to have been another poster.
I think part of the reason that the polls were so wrong is that many trump supporters lied to the pollsters out of sheer spite.
I think it had more to do with turnout being wildly different than normal, not lying.
The pollsters expected a certain portion of the population to turn out to vote, a different portion voted instead. That’s the hardest part of polling to get right, and they were still (barely) in the margin of error.
I’m curious: how wrong do you think the polls were?
Look back at the Civil War. You had half the country willing to put their lives on the line (and kill), so 1% of its citizens could own slaves.
It’s truly mind boggling.
Or trying to delay the passage of time, or at least denying it. It’s a lot like Relativity and how people in different positions/circumstances view time and space events differently.
To themselves, perhaps, Conservatives are not moving backwards. Instead they see themselves as standing firmly in one place. But when everyone else is moving forward into the future the Conservatives are seen as going in reverse.