Will a Democrat ever win in a 1972 or 1984 scale landslide?

[DevotedDemocrat]

Will a Democratic candidate ever have a 49 state landslide similar to Nixon in '72 or Reagan in '84?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

No, there's just too many small, inelastic states out west and in the south.

I could see someone like Warner or Schweitzer against a Tea Partier winning about 40 states and getting something like 430 electoral votes, but that's about as big as it gets.

[The Dowager Mod]

The Republicans could run a necrophiliac with a double digit IQ, as long as he's white and claims to be christian he would carry SC and UT at least, so no.

[TDAS04]

Unlikely for either party anytime soon.

[SWE]

Yes, me in 2044.

Seriously though, I don't see a landslide like that happening anytime soon, for either party

[justfollowingtheelections]

The Democrats would win in Utah if they run a Mormon.

[LeBron]

No, there's just too many small, inelastic states out west and in the south.

I could see someone like Warner or Schweitzer against a Tea Partier winning about 40 states and getting something like 430 electoral votes, but that's about as big as it gets.

If Obama can't even come close to a 40 state threshold in a heavily anti-Bush and anti-Tea Partier/anti-Palin year, then Schweitzer certainly can't do it as someone who's a bland, out-of-focus politician against a Tea Partier. Schweitzer can't even carry his home state of Montana in a hypothetical matchup against potential Republican challengers.

For the question at hand, no because with the current polarization, it just can't happen even with a widely liked candidate as Nixon and Reagan were at the time. Likeability has worn off as Republicans have become more conservative, Democrats more liberal, and states like Idaho, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas and Nebraska make it impossible to ever get a 49 state landslide for Democrats while the roadblock for Repubs. is Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Hawaii or California. Even in a what if scenario where Dems run someone like Sebelius and Republicans run someone like Darrell Issa, those states can't flip. One's too liberal and the other's too conservative while in other cases with the likes of Freudenthal, Henry, Bredesen or Matheson, they will never, ever run.

[Meeker]

LBJ in '64 got a higher percentage of the vote than either Nixon or Reagan.

[Goldwater]

Unlikely for either party anytime soon.

[henster]

Bill Clinton without Ross Perot in 1996 would've likely won by double digits and got 400+ EV.

[morgieb]

Unlikely for either party anytime soon.

[Zioneer]

The Democrats would win in Utah if they run a Mormon.

Or if the Republicans ran an anti-Mormon bigot (which could happen, one of Rick Perry's backers was very anti-Mormon).

But yeah, it'd take a Mormon Dem (Huntsman, if he fulfilled the ridiculous pundit fantasy of turning Democratic) to turn Utah blue for sure. I like the idea of one of the Udalls running.

[Skill and Chance]

The Democrats would win in Utah if they run a Mormon.

Or if the Republicans ran an anti-Mormon bigot (which could happen, one of Rick Perry's backers was very anti-Mormon).

But yeah, it'd take a Mormon Dem (Huntsman, if he fulfilled the ridiculous pundit fantasy of turning Democratic) to turn Utah blue for sure. I like the idea of one of the Udalls running.

I could see Huckabee in particular saying something unfortunate.  Still, that would probably just drop the R into the 50's in Utah unless it was really, really bad.

[Zioneer]

The Democrats would win in Utah if they run a Mormon.

Or if the Republicans ran an anti-Mormon bigot (which could happen, one of Rick Perry's backers was very anti-Mormon).

But yeah, it'd take a Mormon Dem (Huntsman, if he fulfilled the ridiculous pundit fantasy of turning Democratic) to turn Utah blue for sure. I like the idea of one of the Udalls running.

I could see Huckabee in particular saying something unfortunate.  Still, that would probably just drop the R into the 50's in Utah unless it was really, really bad.

Probably, though if a Mormon Dem was running and the Republicans uttered really bad anti-Mormon comments (entirely possible), Utah could probably flip.

[SWE]

No, there's just too many small, inelastic states out west and in the south.

I could see someone like Warner or Schweitzer against a Tea Partier winning about 40 states and getting something like 430 electoral votes, but that's about as big as it gets.

If Obama can't even come close to a 40 state threshold in a heavily anti-Bush and anti-Tea Partier/anti-Palin year,

In 2008, the Republicans ran a strong candidate. If the nomiantion went to say, Romney or or Huckabee, Obama probably would've won by a much larger margin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Schweitzer would have stronger appeal than almost any other Dem in the south and west, and against a tea part candidate, would probably do better than any Dem since LBJ.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wish

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Sure.  The extreme right in the United States will be certain to splinter off for a cycle into a independent candidate at some point.  Think 1968... but now that the blacks can vote it will be the Democrat who wins the Deep South. 

[pbrower2a]

Obama won a mirror image of a Reagan-like landslide in 2/3 of the states in 2008 but lost by a Reagan-like landslide in the others.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No, and neither will the GOP.

With the current polarization, such electoral landslides aren't possible and it won't change for some longer time.

I remember a while ago someone even posted a map showing potential Democratic and Republican 60% landslides. And it's not as lopsides electorally as 36, 64, 72 nor 84.

[ElectionsGuy]

I kind of doubt it in this polarized era. Plus there's many uber republican states out there when there's only what? Hawaii, Vermont, and maybe Rhode Island for uber dem states.

[Mr. Illini]

It's difficult to imagine the Dems pinning the GOP under 50 EVs, with the exception of a strong home-state Democrat advantage in one of these states, which would just take one of these states away. The Democrats would have an incredibly difficult time breaking this firewall.

[LeBron]

No, there's just too many small, inelastic states out west and in the south.

I could see someone like Warner or Schweitzer against a Tea Partier winning about 40 states and getting something like 430 electoral votes, but that's about as big as it gets.

If Obama can't even come close to a 40 state threshold in a heavily anti-Bush and anti-Tea Partier/anti-Palin year,

In 2008, the Republicans ran a strong candidate. If the nomiantion went to say, Romney or or Huckabee, Obama probably would've won by a much larger margin.

McCain may have been the best, but his hawkish stances were not good at all when you look at 2008. The Tea Party's intervention and Bush's failed economic and foreign policies didn't do him any good either and with change in mind and people optimistic about our first African American President, it may not have mattered who the Republicans ran because VP pick Palin cancels out Romney's horrible record as MA Governor and Huckabee's religious right views.

then Schweitzer certainly can't do it as someone who's a bland, out-of-focus politician against a Tea Partier. Schweitzer can't even carry his home state of Montana in a hypothetical matchup against potential Republican challengers.

Schweitzer would have stronger appeal than almost any other Dem in the south and west, and against a tea part candidate, would probably do better than any Dem since LBJ.

Yeah, his populism would help down South and would have better numbers than Obama had down there or out west, but there's no way Schweitzer could carry Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina or other long-shots down there. Missouri maybe and he could make West Virginia competitive especially if he picked Manchin as his running mate, but beyond that, Schweitzer would never be able to replicate Bill Clinton's electoral tally and I think he would struggle to beat Obama's 2008 or 2012 percentages.

For the question at hand, no because with the current polarization, it just can't happen even with a widely liked candidate as Nixon and Reagan were at the time. Likeability has worn off as Republicans have become more conservative, Democrats more liberal, and states like Idaho, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas and Nebraska make it impossible to ever get a 49 state landslide for Democrats while the roadblock for Repubs. is Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Hawaii or California. Even in a what if scenario where Dems run someone like Sebelius and Republicans run someone like Darrell Issa, those states can't flip. One's too liberal and the other's too conservative while in other cases with the likes of Freudenthal, Henry, Bredesen or Matheson, they will never, ever run.

I wish

Actually, a recent Gallup poll suggests that the liberal base of the Democratic Party is growing stronger while conservatives are losing their traction. Of course, it has to do with the changing demographics with decreasing whites and increasing minorities.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

The country is simply too polarized for that to happen. The two candidates that could theoretically do that, Warner and Schweitzer, won't be able to pull it off.
Warner is too conservative for the liberal base and would thus turn them off. End of story.
Schweitzer is an even bigger basketcase; he is both too rightwing and too leftwing for the democratic base. He combines with hillybilly nationalism with his stoned, tabula rasa look that just screams, "I am so high that I will legalize marijuana/mescaline and feed them to your kids." The man himself is just a basketcase that wouldn't be able to accomplish anything.

[H. Ross Peron]

Unlikely for either party anytime soon.

[IceSpear]

It's difficult to imagine the Dems pinning the GOP under 50 EVs, with the exception of a strong home-state Democrat advantage in one of these states, which would just take one of these states away. The Democrats would have an incredibly difficult time breaking this firewall.

Odd you would include Arkansas in this when Hillary currently leads in the polls there...

The rest looks accurate though.

[SWE]

It's difficult to imagine the Dems pinning the GOP under 50 EVs, with the exception of a strong home-state Democrat advantage in one of these states, which would just take one of these states away. The Democrats would have an incredibly difficult time breaking this firewall.

Odd you would include Arkansas in this when Hillary currently leads in the polls there...

The rest looks accurate though.

Polls this far out from the election don't really tell us anything, except that Hillary has the most name recognition