What is the likelihood of a major landslide happening?

[CJK]

What would be the likelihood of either

a) Obama loses as or more badly than Jimmy Carter in 1980.

b) Obama wins as good as or better than Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Popular vote or electoral vote can be used as measurements.

[Senator Libertas]

If the GOP nominates a genuine alternative to Obama's failed policies, like Gary Johnson or Dr. Paul, it will be a landslide defeat for Obama.

If the GOP nominates an establishment hack, it will be a repeat of 2008, with a few states flipped here and there.

[ag]

If the GOP nominates a genuine alternative to Obama's failed policies, like Gary Johnson or Dr. Paul, it will be a landslide defeat for Obama.

If the GOP nominates an establishment hack, it will be a repeat of 2008, with a few states flipped here and there.

If GOP nominates Paul, Obama will win handsomely even getting a start from an approval of under 30%. But GOP won't.

[Alexander Hamilton]

pbrower2a is a clown

[Swedish Cheese]

a) Basicly non-exsistent.
b) Basicly non-exsistent

At best Obama wins the Dakotas, Montanta, Missouri, Arizona, and Georgia.

At best for the Republicans, they win the Bush 04 states + New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.





 

[Senator Libertas]

If the GOP nominates a genuine alternative to Obama's failed policies, like Gary Johnson or Dr. Paul, it will be a landslide defeat for Obama.

If the GOP nominates an establishment hack, it will be a repeat of 2008, with a few states flipped here and there.

If GOP nominates Paul, Obama will win handsomely even getting a start from an approval of under 30%. But GOP won't.

Uh, no he won't. If the GOP nominated Paul (either one), he would have to face someone who could offer real alternative solutions to the failed policies of the previous twelve years under BushBama. That would be the death of Obama.

[Alexander Hamilton]

the corporatist candidate will win

[Padfoot]

What would be the likelihood of either

a) Obama loses as or more badly than Jimmy Carter in 1980.

b) Obama wins as good as or better than Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Popular vote or electoral vote can be used as measurements.

An electoral vote landslide of that magnitude is not possible for either party unless Obama reveals himself as Osama in disguise or the Republican nominee is a member of the Klan. 

As for the popular vote, here's the margin of victory for every election of the past 30 years:

1980: R+9.74%
1984: R+18.21%
1988: R+7.72%
1992: D+5.56%
1996: D+8.51%
2000: D+0.51%
2004: R+2.46%
2008: D+7.27%

The only real landslide there is 1984 and that is extremely unlikely.  However if Obama rebounds by 2012 I wouldn't be surprised if we got close to a D+10% victory.  The best Republicans can hope for at this point is probably R+2%.

[Zarn]

Look at the swing between 88 and 92. The Republicans can do a lot better than +2%.

[Senator Libertas]

What would be the likelihood of either

a) Obama loses as or more badly than Jimmy Carter in 1980.

b) Obama wins as good as or better than Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Popular vote or electoral vote can be used as measurements.

An electoral vote landslide of that magnitude is not possible for either party unless Obama reveals himself as Osama in disguise or the Republican nominee is a member of the Klan. 

As for the popular vote, here's the margin of victory for every election of the past 30 years:

1980: R+9.74%
1984: R+18.21%
1988: R+7.72%
1992: D+5.56%
1996: D+8.51%
2000: D+0.51%
2004: R+2.46%
2008: D+7.27%

The only real landslide there is 1984 and that is extremely unlikely.  However if Obama rebounds by 2012 I wouldn't be surprised if we got close to a D+10% victory.  The best Republicans can hope for at this point is probably R+2%.

Shouldn't 2000 be R -0.51%? D didn't actually win the election.

[pbrower2a]

What would be the likelihood of either

a) Obama loses as or more badly than Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Practically nil. Eighteen states and DC haven't voted for a GOP nominee in the last five Presidential elections, and all of those went for Obama by more than 10% in 2008. That suggests about 240 electoral votes if one makes allowances for losses of electoral votes due to reapportionment of House seats in accordance with the 2010 election. Add about 15 electoral votes from three states that had voted for a Republican only once since 1988 (IA, NH, NM) and Nevada, which voted for Obama by a large margin, and you see a cultural pattern.

In short, CA-CT-DE-DC-HI-IL-IA-ME-MD-MA-MI-MN-NV-NH-NJ-NM-NY-OR-RI-VT-WA-WI  

Except for Hawaii and New Mexico these states are in clear, compact groups of contiguous states. They are secular states in which the Religious Right, a major constituency of the Republican Party nationwide, is unusually weak.  

Obama would have to lose 6% support to his Republican opponent to start losing states that he won by a  margin less than 12% (which means that he would win all of the above states except IA, MN, NH, and PA) and still win about 210 electoral votes.

To win only 49 electoral votes as Carter did in 1980 he could not win California (one of the most Democratic-leaning states) or a combination of his own state (Illinois) and New York. Those three states are among the most likely to vote for him in 2012.

b) Obama wins as good as or better than Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Absolutely no way. The last three states (OK, UT, WY) and one district (NE-03) that would ever vote for Obama alone comprise 14 electoral votes, one more than those that Mondale got in 1984. Such would require Obama to pick up a bunch of states that he got absolutely crushed in.

Of course it is possible that Obama could win over some large groups of voters who rejected him in 2008, or that  the Republicans could run a complete turkey. Most likely, the GOP is going to find someone who excites the base and wins large parts of the South, the Inner Mountain states, and the Great Plains. The strongest Obama victory that I could imagine is an Eisenhower-scale victory if everything goes right for him.

[CJK]

What would be the likelihood of either

a) Obama loses as or more badly than Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Practically nil. Eighteen states and DC haven't voted for a GOP nominee in the last five Presidential elections, and all of those went for Obama by more than 10% in 2008. That suggests about 240 electoral votes if one makes allowances for losses of electoral votes due to reapportionment of House seats in accordance with the 2010 election. Add about 15 electoral votes from three states that had voted for a Republican only once since 1988 (IA, NH, NM) and Nevada, which voted for Obama by a large margin, and you see a cultural pattern.

In short, CA-CT-DE-DC-HI-IL-IA-ME-MD-MA-MI-MN-NV-NH-NJ-NM-NY-OR-RI-VT-WA-WI  

Except for Hawaii and New Mexico these states are in clear, compact groups of contiguous states. They are secular states in which the Religious Right, a major constituency of the Republican Party nationwide, is unusually weak.  

Obama would have to lose 6% support to his Republican opponent to start losing states that he won by a  margin less than 12% (which means that he would win all of the above states except IA, MN, NH, and PA) and still win about 210 electoral votes.

To win only 49 electoral votes as Carter did in 1980 he could not win California (one of the most Democratic-leaning states) or a combination of his own state (Illinois) and New York. Those three states are among the most likely to vote for him in 2012.

b) Obama wins as good as or better than Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Absolutely no way. The last three states (OK, UT, WY) and one district (NE-03) that would ever vote for Obama alone comprise 14 electoral votes, one more than those that Mondale got in 1984. Such would require Obama to pick up a bunch of states that he got absolutely crushed in.

Of course it is possible that Obama could win over some large groups of voters who rejected him in 2008, or that  the Republicans could run a complete turkey. Most likely, the GOP is going to find someone who excites the base and wins large parts of the South, the Inner Mountain states, and the Great Plains. The strongest Obama victory that I could imagine is an Eisenhower-scale victory if everything goes right for him.

What about if you just take into account the popular vote?

[Vepres]

The country will probably be very polarized then as it is now (though it might not be, the election is 3 years away), Personally, I think both sides have a ceiling of a Clinton '96-like minor landslide.

[segwaystyle2012]

THe nation is way too polarized.

[Poundingtherock]

were the demographics in 1996, Clinton defeats Dole by 12-13%.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Poundingthercok, your posting style SUCKS

[GPORTER]

I think that Obama could win in a landslide...winning South Carolina, the Dakotas, Georgia, Missouri, Texas, Montana, and I am probably missing a few. That and holding all of his 2008 states.

What do I really think will happen...I think he will pick up Georgia, and Montana but be shocked when he still looses Missouri by about the margin of Florida in 2000.

[N.i.K.]

How about if the Democrats nominate Dennis Kucinich? And Obama has a 39% approval rating?

[Senator Libertas]

How about if the Democrats nominate Dennis Kucinich? And Obama has a 39% approval rating?

Depends who the GOP nominates. If they nominate Palin or Huckabee, Kucinich could have a landslide win.

[N.i.K.]

How about if the Democrats nominate Dennis Kucinich? And Obama has a 39% approval rating?

Depends who the GOP nominates. If they nominate Palin or Huckabee, Kucinich could have a landslide win.

Are you serious?

[Senator Libertas]

How about if the Democrats nominate Dennis Kucinich? And Obama has a 39% approval rating?

Depends who the GOP nominates. If they nominate Palin or Huckabee, Kucinich could have a landslide win.

Are you serious?

Voters will prefer the more sane candidate. Palin certainly ain't it.

[N.i.K.]

How about if the Democrats nominate Dennis Kucinich? And Obama has a 39% approval rating?

Depends who the GOP nominates. If they nominate Palin or Huckabee, Kucinich could have a landslide win.

Are you serious?

Voters will prefer the more sane candidate. Palin certainly ain't it.

Dude, Kucinich has said he's seen UFOs.

Dennis Kucinich is, also, way too far to the left to win a presidential election. And, even if the GOP nominates a theocrat, the theocrat will still win.

[Sewer]

Dude, Kucinich has said he's seen UFOs.

He saw an object that he can not identify and was flying?


So what?

[N.i.K.]

Dude, Kucinich has said he's seen UFOs.

He saw an object that he can not identify and was flying?


So what?

Sewer, did you even know what he said and felt? He said that he found the encounter extremely moving and felt directions in his mind. Kucinich also said that it was a triangular craft, silent and hovering.

[Alexander Hamilton]

at least Kucinich is not a corporate whore