Do people tend to think 1972 = 1984 in terms of margin?

[Antonio the Sixth]

People tend to focus on the electoral map and neglect popular vote data. They tend to forget that the same PV margin can produce very different maps and reciprocally.

The fact Mondale didn't have any true stronghold (even MN almost went for Reagan) was Reagan's strength. On the other hand, had Mondale won by 18 points, he would have taken more EVs than LBJ did with 23.

[Antonio the Sixth]

People tend to focus on the electoral map and neglect popular vote data. They tend to forget that the same PV margin can produce very different maps and reciprocally.

The fact Mondale didn't have any true stronghold (even MN almost went for Reagan) was Reagan's strength. On the other hand, had Mondale won by 18 points, he would have taken more EVs than LBJ did with 23.

Things don't work like that. At all.

The truth is that, neither you nor me have any clue about how "things work". Uniform National Swing isn't perfect, but it's the most logical assumption you can make if you're interested in knowing how things could turn out with a different margin.

[Antonio the Sixth]

...and Yes, Napoleon is right.

You'll need a multivariate regression to get closer.

You can't use multivariate regression because no election is similar to the previous one. If you find that, for example, California tends to swing more strongly than the nation (ie, when republicans win, it is more republican and conversely), it might just be that California has trended democrat by the time democrats won bigger victories. Presidential elections are too rare and subject to bold swings for complicated statistical analyses to make any sense.

Conclusion : we have no way to know how an EV map would have turned out with a different PV margin. When you have no way to know something, the best assumption is the simplest one. In your own words, Napoleon...