Is a landslide possible?

[LBJ Revivalist]

Would any of you say a landslide on the scale of 1936, 1964, 1972 or 1984 is possible for Obama in 2012? Why or why not?

[Senator Libertas]

A landslide defeat for Obama? Yes.

A landslide victory for Obama? LOL no.

[oakvale]

Against Palin or Paul only.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not sure about a landslide but come November 2012 if the economy has rebounded nicely, there are no unpopular foreign wars and no major scandals directly implicating the president he wins - and he wins comfortably

He won't be a transformational president that would require reset on Reagan. And I see no sign that the "cult of liberalism" wherein lies all the causation for the 'Crash of 2008' and the ensuring 'Great Recession' going the way of revolutionary socialism, unfortunately

[pbrower2a]

The regional polarization of the American vote remains intact. Recent polls suggest that President Obama remains extremely popular in New York and extremely unpopular in Utah and Arkansas. Many Americans still won't vote for any black person for any office. No way can President Obama win a landslide analogous to Reagan 1984 or LBJ 1964, when states that ordinarily vote for Republican nominees vote for Obama (or against a weak Republican nominee).

Here's what an Obama landslide in 2012 looks like: he wins everything that he won in 2008, but adds

Missouri
Montana
Georgia
Arizona
South Carolina
North Dakota
South Dakota
NE-01
Texas


which is everything that Obama lost by less than 12%. That is about enough to have a landslide reminiscent of Eisenhower in 1956. The key is Texas, obviously a difficult state for any Democrat to win in a statewide election. Hint: Carter barely won it, and if any Democrat was going to win Texas, it would have been Bill Clinton -- who didn't. Obama is much unlike the sort of politician who can win Texas in a a statewide election. Obama is just too much a Yankee to win Texas, and I doubt that he will go on any quixotic effort to win Texas.

It is remarkable that he won Indiana and Virginia, states that hadn't voted for a Democratic nominee since 1964.

[Padfoot]

I agree with pbrower2a with regards to a Democratic landslide.  Texas is probably not possible with Obama but all the other states he listed are definitely within reach if Obama's popularity is high.

A Republican landslide of Reagan proportions is equally unlikely given that California, New York, and Illinois are completely out of reach for the GOP and that's over 100 EVs right there.  Assuming Obama loses the nationwide popular vote by 10 points I'd imagine he would still be able to pull this off:




Post Census reapportionment that probably puts him somewhere around 195 EVs.
 

[N.i.K.]

Anything is possible as of right now; However I wouldn't bet on an Obama or GOP victory bigger then 450 EVs.

[xavier110]

Yeah, Obama's very worst scenario would have him still taking at least six or seven states with many EVs. His very best scenario still probably leaves a lot of states for the Republicans. There's no room for a huge landslide.

[cope1989]

In order for an Obama landslide to take place the economy is going to have to turn around asap and boom like crazy, and he's going to need to have his campaign out in full force creating the sane momentum he had in 2008. With all that he could get past 400 EV

[justW353]

Best Case Scenario for Obama:



Worst Case Scenario for Obama (When he admits he hates America and is a secret Muslim):

[Bo]

A landslide ON THAT SCALE is not possible for Obama in 2012. However, I would not rule out an Obama landslide where he wins between 375 and 425 EVs.

[ScottM]

I don't think Obama can pull off a landslide. Even if he managed to get 53% again, which I doubt seriously, I don't think he can carry IN, NC, or NE-2 again.

[Frodo]

Certainly -things looked just as bleak in 1982 and 1970 for Reagan and Nixon.

I don't think Obama can pull off a landslide. Even if he managed to get 53% again, which I doubt seriously, I don't think he can carry IN, NC, or NE-2 again.

Off topic, but where in Mississippi are you from?  You are the first Republican from Mississippi (that I am aware of) to be posting here.  The only other Mississippian we have here is Harry, who is a liberal Democrat. 

[ScottM]

Certainly -things looked just as bleak in 1982 and 1970 for Reagan and Nixon.

I don't think Obama can pull off a landslide. Even if he managed to get 53% again, which I doubt seriously, I don't think he can carry IN, NC, or NE-2 again.

Off topic, but where in Mississippi are you from?  You are the first Republican from Mississippi (that I am aware of) to be posting here.  The only other Mississippian we have here is Harry, who is a liberal Democrat. 

I'm not far from Laurel in the southern part of the state.

True, Obama wouldn't be the first President to recover from dire straights to win re-election, but I don't think he's got the temperament to pull it off. He frequently looks "un-Presidential," and seems to be in campaign mode all the time. I won't say he has zero chance in 2012, but I just don't see the changes that he needs to have happening, and I don't see him inspiring enough people to vote for him again.

[cope1989]

Certainly -things looked just as bleak in 1982 and 1970 for Reagan and Nixon.

I don't think Obama can pull off a landslide. Even if he managed to get 53% again, which I doubt seriously, I don't think he can carry IN, NC, or NE-2 again.

Off topic, but where in Mississippi are you from?  You are the first Republican from Mississippi (that I am aware of) to be posting here.  The only other Mississippian we have here is Harry, who is a liberal Democrat. 

I'm not far from Laurel in the southern part of the state.

True, Obama wouldn't be the first President to recover from dire straights to win re-election, but I don't think he's got the temperament to pull it off. He frequently looks "un-Presidential," and seems to be in campaign mode all the time. I won't say he has zero chance in 2012, but I just don't see the changes that he needs to have happening, and I don't see him inspiring enough people to vote for him again.

 There was just as much doubt about Obama getting healthcare reform passed. Even I thought it was dead and look what happened. For as long as the President has been in the spotlight people have been underestimating him, only to be shocked when Obama accomplishes what no one thinks he can do. Anyone still grossly underestimating his abilities will be sorely proven wrong in 2012.

[ScottM]

Certainly -things looked just as bleak in 1982 and 1970 for Reagan and Nixon.

I don't think Obama can pull off a landslide. Even if he managed to get 53% again, which I doubt seriously, I don't think he can carry IN, NC, or NE-2 again.

Off topic, but where in Mississippi are you from?  You are the first Republican from Mississippi (that I am aware of) to be posting here.  The only other Mississippian we have here is Harry, who is a liberal Democrat. 

I'm not far from Laurel in the southern part of the state.

True, Obama wouldn't be the first President to recover from dire straights to win re-election, but I don't think he's got the temperament to pull it off. He frequently looks "un-Presidential," and seems to be in campaign mode all the time. I won't say he has zero chance in 2012, but I just don't see the changes that he needs to have happening, and I don't see him inspiring enough people to vote for him again.

 There was just as much doubt about Obama getting healthcare reform passed. Even I thought it was dead and look what happened. For as long as the President has been in the spotlight people have been underestimating him, only to be shocked when Obama accomplishes what no one thinks he can do. Anyone still grossly underestimating his abilities will be sorely proven wrong in 2012.

The healthcare passage looks quite likely to do serious damage to the Dems in November, too. There's a difference between proving people are underestimating yourself and self-destructing. Maybe a fine line at times, but there is one. I guess I'm just saying that I think he's self-destructing. You'll find a lot of people on both sides. Only time will tell.

[justW353]

Certainly -things looked just as bleak in 1982 and 1970 for Reagan and Nixon.

I don't think Obama can pull off a landslide. Even if he managed to get 53% again, which I doubt seriously, I don't think he can carry IN, NC, or NE-2 again.

Off topic, but where in Mississippi are you from?  You are the first Republican from Mississippi (that I am aware of) to be posting here.  The only other Mississippian we have here is Harry, who is a liberal Democrat. 

I'm not far from Laurel in the southern part of the state.

True, Obama wouldn't be the first President to recover from dire straights to win re-election, but I don't think he's got the temperament to pull it off. He frequently looks "un-Presidential," and seems to be in campaign mode all the time. I won't say he has zero chance in 2012, but I just don't see the changes that he needs to have happening, and I don't see him inspiring enough people to vote for him again.

 There was just as much doubt about Obama getting healthcare reform passed. Even I thought it was dead and look what happened. For as long as the President has been in the spotlight people have been underestimating him, only to be shocked when Obama accomplishes what no one thinks he can do. Anyone still grossly underestimating his abilities will be sorely proven wrong in 2012.

The healthcare passage looks quite likely to do serious damage to the Dems in November, too. There's a difference between proving people are underestimating yourself and self-destructing. Maybe a fine line at times, but there is one. I guess I'm just saying that I think he's self-destructing. You'll find a lot of people on both sides. Only time will tell.

HCR will do damage in November of 2010, but it will help him in November of 2012.

As for "Un-Presidential", what is the definition of "Presidential"?  The man has tens of thousands coming to rallies to see him everyday...I'm not followin' ya.

[ScottM]

Certainly -things looked just as bleak in 1982 and 1970 for Reagan and Nixon.

I don't think Obama can pull off a landslide. Even if he managed to get 53% again, which I doubt seriously, I don't think he can carry IN, NC, or NE-2 again.

Off topic, but where in Mississippi are you from?  You are the first Republican from Mississippi (that I am aware of) to be posting here.  The only other Mississippian we have here is Harry, who is a liberal Democrat. 

I'm not far from Laurel in the southern part of the state.

True, Obama wouldn't be the first President to recover from dire straights to win re-election, but I don't think he's got the temperament to pull it off. He frequently looks "un-Presidential," and seems to be in campaign mode all the time. I won't say he has zero chance in 2012, but I just don't see the changes that he needs to have happening, and I don't see him inspiring enough people to vote for him again.

 There was just as much doubt about Obama getting healthcare reform passed. Even I thought it was dead and look what happened. For as long as the President has been in the spotlight people have been underestimating him, only to be shocked when Obama accomplishes what no one thinks he can do. Anyone still grossly underestimating his abilities will be sorely proven wrong in 2012.

The healthcare passage looks quite likely to do serious damage to the Dems in November, too. There's a difference between proving people are underestimating yourself and self-destructing. Maybe a fine line at times, but there is one. I guess I'm just saying that I think he's self-destructing. You'll find a lot of people on both sides. Only time will tell.

HCR will do damage in November of 2010, but it will help him in November of 2012.

As for "Un-Presidential", what is the definition of "Presidential"?  The man has tens of thousands coming to rallies to see him everyday...I'm not followin' ya.

I don't think the healthcare bill helps him at all in 2012. I just don't think people will like what they see.

What I mean by Un-Presidential is the fact that he's constantly in campaign mode, rather than trying to cast himself as a leader. Also, he acts so disdainful of those who oppose him. Example: His recent comments about being "amused" by the tea-partiers. He totally ignores and mocks them, not realizing that they really are a political force, and that they truly disagree with him. If he wants to be re-elected, he's going to have to take his opponents more seriously and not totally disregard them as extremists.

[justW353]

Certainly -things looked just as bleak in 1982 and 1970 for Reagan and Nixon.

I don't think Obama can pull off a landslide. Even if he managed to get 53% again, which I doubt seriously, I don't think he can carry IN, NC, or NE-2 again.

Off topic, but where in Mississippi are you from?  You are the first Republican from Mississippi (that I am aware of) to be posting here.  The only other Mississippian we have here is Harry, who is a liberal Democrat. 

I'm not far from Laurel in the southern part of the state.

True, Obama wouldn't be the first President to recover from dire straights to win re-election, but I don't think he's got the temperament to pull it off. He frequently looks "un-Presidential," and seems to be in campaign mode all the time. I won't say he has zero chance in 2012, but I just don't see the changes that he needs to have happening, and I don't see him inspiring enough people to vote for him again.

 There was just as much doubt about Obama getting healthcare reform passed. Even I thought it was dead and look what happened. For as long as the President has been in the spotlight people have been underestimating him, only to be shocked when Obama accomplishes what no one thinks he can do. Anyone still grossly underestimating his abilities will be sorely proven wrong in 2012.

The healthcare passage looks quite likely to do serious damage to the Dems in November, too. There's a difference between proving people are underestimating yourself and self-destructing. Maybe a fine line at times, but there is one. I guess I'm just saying that I think he's self-destructing. You'll find a lot of people on both sides. Only time will tell.

HCR will do damage in November of 2010, but it will help him in November of 2012.

As for "Un-Presidential", what is the definition of "Presidential"?  The man has tens of thousands coming to rallies to see him everyday...I'm not followin' ya.

I don't think the healthcare bill helps him at all in 2012. I just don't think people will like what they see.

What I mean by Un-Presidential is the fact that he's constantly in campaign mode, rather than trying to cast himself as a leader. Also, he acts so disdainful of those who oppose him. Example: His recent comments about being "amused" by the tea-partiers. He totally ignores and mocks them, not realizing that they really are a political force, and that they truly disagree with him. If he wants to be re-elected, he's going to have to take his opponents more seriously and not totally disregard them as extremists.

The Tea Party isn't a political force.  It's a couple hundred thousand disgruntled conservatives who weren't going to vote for him in the first place.  Why would he make any attend to appease the unpleasable?

I'd say doing something Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton couldn't do is pretty damned "Presidential".

In short, I respectfully disagree.  While I am critical of his Palin statements, the man is letting it get to him.  I just hope he doesn't let it become bitter and cynical like it did with Nixon (it probably already is).

The Presidency is a hard job, it takes a special type of personality to handle it.  I'd say Reagan had it down perfectly.  As much as I hate to say it, Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.  However, he could be a very special President if he gets a hold of his emotions better.

[ScottM]

Certainly -things looked just as bleak in 1982 and 1970 for Reagan and Nixon.

I don't think Obama can pull off a landslide. Even if he managed to get 53% again, which I doubt seriously, I don't think he can carry IN, NC, or NE-2 again.

Off topic, but where in Mississippi are you from?  You are the first Republican from Mississippi (that I am aware of) to be posting here.  The only other Mississippian we have here is Harry, who is a liberal Democrat. 

I'm not far from Laurel in the southern part of the state.

True, Obama wouldn't be the first President to recover from dire straights to win re-election, but I don't think he's got the temperament to pull it off. He frequently looks "un-Presidential," and seems to be in campaign mode all the time. I won't say he has zero chance in 2012, but I just don't see the changes that he needs to have happening, and I don't see him inspiring enough people to vote for him again.

 There was just as much doubt about Obama getting healthcare reform passed. Even I thought it was dead and look what happened. For as long as the President has been in the spotlight people have been underestimating him, only to be shocked when Obama accomplishes what no one thinks he can do. Anyone still grossly underestimating his abilities will be sorely proven wrong in 2012.

The healthcare passage looks quite likely to do serious damage to the Dems in November, too. There's a difference between proving people are underestimating yourself and self-destructing. Maybe a fine line at times, but there is one. I guess I'm just saying that I think he's self-destructing. You'll find a lot of people on both sides. Only time will tell.

HCR will do damage in November of 2010, but it will help him in November of 2012.

As for "Un-Presidential", what is the definition of "Presidential"?  The man has tens of thousands coming to rallies to see him everyday...I'm not followin' ya.

I don't think the healthcare bill helps him at all in 2012. I just don't think people will like what they see.

What I mean by Un-Presidential is the fact that he's constantly in campaign mode, rather than trying to cast himself as a leader. Also, he acts so disdainful of those who oppose him. Example: His recent comments about being "amused" by the tea-partiers. He totally ignores and mocks them, not realizing that they really are a political force, and that they truly disagree with him. If he wants to be re-elected, he's going to have to take his opponents more seriously and not totally disregard them as extremists.

The Tea Party isn't a political force.  It's a couple hundred thousand disgruntled conservatives who weren't going to vote for him in the first place.  Why would he make any attend to appease the unpleasable?

I'd say doing something Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton couldn't do is pretty damned "Presidential".

In short, I respectfully disagree.  While I am critical of his Palin statements, the man is letting it get to him.  I just hope he doesn't let it become bitter and cynical like it did with Nixon (it probably already is).

The Presidency is a hard job, it takes a special type of personality to handle it.  I'd say Reagan had it down perfectly.  As much as I hate to say it, Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.  However, he could be a very special President if he gets a hold of his emotions better.

We're back to the fine line, I think. Genius and insanity really are that close. Time will tell the tale and show which position is correct.

I'm fine with people disagreeing with me. If you knew my full philosophy of government, Probably 99.9% of people here would disagree with me. That's fine though. The first amendment in action.

I do have to strongly disagree with you about the tea party, though. Marco Rubio, J. D. Hayworth, Rand Paul, and Bart Stupak are good examples as to why. Plus, recent surveys have shown that as many as 40% of tea-partiers are either Independents or Democrats.

I'd like to say on a personal note, that I've found this discussion quite enjoyable. There's been no mud slinging, and it's been a good solid debate.

[pbrower2a]

I look at this election (third parties ignored):

* **** **1944 Presidential General Election Results** **** *
-

   Franklin Roosevelt   Harry Truman   Democratic    25,612,916    53.39%    432    81.4%
   Thomas Dewey   John Bricker   Republican    22,017,929    45.89%      99    18.6%

and this one:

* **** **2008 Presidential General Election Results** **** *
-
  
   Barack Obama  Joseph R. Biden   Democratic    69,499,428    52.87%    365    67.8%
   John McCain      Sarah H. Palin           Republican    59,950,323    45.60%    173    32.2%



as good analogues  for the popular vote. The first was a blowout in electoral votes, but the second was understood to be a close election until very late in the cycle. The difference between the percentages of popular vote were almost identical -- 7.5% and 7.2%.  Sure, the two candidates were very different; in the first, the winner was close to the end of his life and the loser was about as close to the start of his political life as one could be and be President. To say that a war was going on in both 1944 and 2008 is to ignore the differences of the wars; World War II was going catastrophically -- for America's enemies, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were going badly.

Aside from winning the South by huge margins, FDR lost Kansas by 21%, Nebraska and South Dakota by roughly 17%, Vermont by 14%, North Dakota by about 8%, Colorado by about 7%, Indiana by about 6%. Maine by about 5%,  Iowa by 4.5%, Wyoming by 2.5%,  Wisconsin by about 2%, and Ohio by less than 0.4%.  FDR won 36 of the 48 states, and was within 4% of winning three more.  If one contrasts Obama, one finds that he lost two states by more than 30%, four more by more than 21% (FDR lost nothing by such margins in 1944!),  six more by more than 14% (worse than FDR's fourth-worst state), and seven more by more than 8%.
 
I don't expect the polarization of 2008 to disappear easily. President Obama could win 57% of the vote and still win about 385 electoral votes.

[ajc0918]

Best Case Scenario for Obama:

Worst Case Scenario for Obama (When he admits he hates America and is a secret Muslim):

The GOP wouldn't win Maine? I would think they would win at least CD-2. Idk, Maine is strange...

[Χahar]

Certainly -things looked just as bleak in 1982 and 1970 for Reagan and Nixon.

I don't think Obama can pull off a landslide. Even if he managed to get 53% again, which I doubt seriously, I don't think he can carry IN, NC, or NE-2 again.

Off topic, but where in Mississippi are you from?  You are the first Republican from Mississippi (that I am aware of) to be posting here.  The only other Mississippian we have here is Harry, who is a liberal Democrat. 

I'm not far from Laurel in the southern part of the state.

True, Obama wouldn't be the first President to recover from dire straights to win re-election, but I don't think he's got the temperament to pull it off. He frequently looks "un-Presidential," and seems to be in campaign mode all the time. I won't say he has zero chance in 2012, but I just don't see the changes that he needs to have happening, and I don't see him inspiring enough people to vote for him again.

 There was just as much doubt about Obama getting healthcare reform passed. Even I thought it was dead and look what happened. For as long as the President has been in the spotlight people have been underestimating him, only to be shocked when Obama accomplishes what no one thinks he can do. Anyone still grossly underestimating his abilities will be sorely proven wrong in 2012.

The healthcare passage looks quite likely to do serious damage to the Dems in November, too. There's a difference between proving people are underestimating yourself and self-destructing. Maybe a fine line at times, but there is one. I guess I'm just saying that I think he's self-destructing. You'll find a lot of people on both sides. Only time will tell.

HCR will do damage in November of 2010, but it will help him in November of 2012.

As for "Un-Presidential", what is the definition of "Presidential"?  The man has tens of thousands coming to rallies to see him everyday...I'm not followin' ya.

I don't think the healthcare bill helps him at all in 2012. I just don't think people will like what they see.

What I mean by Un-Presidential is the fact that he's constantly in campaign mode, rather than trying to cast himself as a leader. Also, he acts so disdainful of those who oppose him. Example: His recent comments about being "amused" by the tea-partiers. He totally ignores and mocks them, not realizing that they really are a political force, and that they truly disagree with him. If he wants to be re-elected, he's going to have to take his opponents more seriously and not totally disregard them as extremists.

Well, you know, he's doing whatever the Republicans want, so I don't see the problem.

[justW353]

The GOP wouldn't win Maine? I would think they would win at least CD-2. Idk, Maine is strange...

Yeah, the GOP would win CD-2.  I'm always unsure as to whether that would flip the state; isn't CD-1 more populated?  I just gave Obama both.  The GOP wouldn't win CD-1 unless they're running someone like Collins or Snowe on the ticket though.

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

I look at this election (third parties ignored):

* **** **1944 Presidential General Election Results** **** *
-

   Franklin Roosevelt   Harry Truman   Democratic    25,612,916    53.39%    432    81.4%
   Thomas Dewey   John Bricker   Republican    22,017,929    45.89%      99    18.6%

and this one:

* **** **2008 Presidential General Election Results** **** *
-
  
   Barack Obama  Joseph R. Biden   Democratic    69,499,428    52.87%    365    67.8%
   John McCain      Sarah H. Palin           Republican    59,950,323    45.60%    173    32.2%



as good analogues  for the popular vote. The first was a blowout in electoral votes, but the second was understood to be a close election until very late in the cycle. The difference between the percentages of popular vote were almost identical -- 7.5% and 7.2%.  Sure, the two candidates were very different; in the first, the winner was close to the end of his life and the loser was about as close to the start of his political life as one could be and be President. To say that a war was going on in both 1944 and 2008 is to ignore the differences of the wars; World War II was going catastrophically -- for America's enemies, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were going badly.

Aside from winning the South by huge margins, FDR lost Kansas by 21%, Nebraska and South Dakota by roughly 17%, Vermont by 14%, North Dakota by about 8%, Colorado by about 7%, Indiana by about 6%. Maine by about 5%,  Iowa by 4.5%, Wyoming by 2.5%,  Wisconsin by about 2%, and Ohio by less than 0.4%.  FDR won 36 of the 48 states, and was within 4% of winning three more.  If one contrasts Obama, one finds that he lost two states by more than 30%, four more by more than 21% (FDR lost nothing by such margins in 1944!),  six more by more than 14% (worse than FDR's fourth-worst state), and seven more by more than 8%.
 
I don't expect the polarization of 2008 to disappear easily. President Obama could win 57% of the vote and still win about 385 electoral votes.

Yep.  Because Obama took almost all the close states in 2008, he doesn't have all that much room to grow.  I could see him widening his pop. vote victory margin to 15% and still only flipping MO, MT and GA.