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

[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.

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

She's certainly more likely to win it than she is to win SC/KY/TN/LA/ND/SD.

[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.

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

The rest looks accurate though.

"with the exception of a strong home-state Democrat advantage in one of these states"

[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.

"with the exception of a strong home-state Democrat advantage in one of these states"

NY is her home state though

Besides, even excluding Hillary and thinking generic D, they're still more likely to win AR than SC.

[pbrower2a]

Were I setting an agenda for the Democratic Party, the last thing that I would want is a gigantic landslide supposedly helping my candidate. The Other Side finds some way to pick off disgruntled participates in a coalition that can't please everyone within it.

Four years after Nixon won the 1972 Presidential election in a 49-state landslide, Jimmy Carter won the Presidency in a close election by winning states that then ordinarily vote Democratic outside the South with almost the whole South (every former Confederate state except Virginia). -- perhaps because Nixon's dirty tricks had been directed to no small part against Southern conservative Democrats. Eight years after the 49-state landslide of Ronald Reagan in 1984, Americans elected Bill Clinton with a raft of states that ordinarily voted Republican in close elections until then.

If I were a grand strategist for the Democratic Party I might be wise to let the Republicans think themselves secure in the Great Plains and the Mountain and Deep South.  Nobody can please everyone indefinitely. Realignments begin when one Party sees its current coalition that brings itself close to victory untenable. 

[pbrower2a]

1976/2008-2012 contrast:

Ford, McCain, and Romney
Ford and Obama
Carter, McCain, and Romney
Ford, Obama, and Romney
Carter, Obama, and Romney
Carter and Obama


This is how the 1984 Reagan landslide eventually sorted itself out.

[TNF]

The only way you're going to see that happen is if

1) voter turnout among whites collapses (not happening)

2) the Democratic Party begins winning the white working class vote (haha)

[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.

"with the exception of a strong home-state Democrat advantage in one of these states"

NY is her home state though

Besides, even excluding Hillary and thinking generic D, they're still more likely to win AR than SC.

Arkansas has been trending R, while SC has been trending D

[pbrower2a]

The Democratic party has become at the least the party of the intelligentsia, militant union people, and poor non-whites. It has taken a big chunk of what used to be the reliable non-farm small-business vote.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

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.

Texas could go Democrat without Arkansas coming along given enough of of a demographic shift in TX, and Latino candidate, but there's no way Kentucky goes Democrat without Arkansas.

The rest of the firewall look pretty good.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Probably the biggest realistic landslide possible:

Dem 493
Rep 45

[MATTROSE94]

This is the absolute ceiling of victory that a competent Democrat can expect to reach if they run against a Rick Santorum/Michelle Bachmann-like candidate.

Conversely, the absolute ceiling for a Republican candidate would look like this:

[Vega]

^

A Republican could win in Connecticut? Doubtful.

[SWE]

A republican is more likely to win Delaware than Connecticut

[MATTROSE94]

^

A Republican could win in Connecticut? Doubtful.

I think that Jon Huntsman could carry it against a Dennis Kucinich-type candidate.

[Maxwell]

They already won by that much in 64, and I think its possible if Republicans run someone as repulsive as Santorum or Gohmert.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Essentially, I think Dems could win a bigger popular vote landslide than Republicans could, but a Dem could never win 49/50 states.

[hopper]

Interesting Stat that no Republican Presidential Candidate has won Minnesota since the Nixon Landslide  in 1972 and no Republican Presidential Candidate has won Massachusetts since the 1984 Reagan Landslide. Of course Mondale carried Minnesota by a slim margin over Reagan in 1984 and McGovern won Massachusetts in 1972.

[hopper]

A republican is more likely to win Delaware than Connecticut

Not so sure anymore about that.

[hopper]

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.

No SC is not the most Republican State or one of them. Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Nebraska are a lot more  more Republican than South Carolina is.

[Vega]

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.

No SC is not the most Republican State or one of them. Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Nebraska are a lot more  more Republican than South Carolina is.

Nebraska is debatable... Obama did win a electoral vote in 08.

[hopper]

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.

Arkansas will probably still have a slight to large R PVI even if Hillary wins the state twice depending on what her margin victory is. I just don't see Arkansas having a D PVI anytime soon.

[hopper]

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.

No SC is not the most Republican State or one of them. Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Nebraska are a lot more  more Republican than South Carolina is.

Nebraska is debatable... Obama did win a electoral vote in 08.

True that was the Slight R Omaha based-district and the area's in and around are trending D which is where the population in Nebraska is growing the most currently  I think but outside of the Omaha Metro(if you will) the state is Pretty Solid R. Taking the 2008 Nebraska Results out the PVI(2004/2012) of the state is R+14 so the state is still pretty solid R.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Conversely, the absolute ceiling for a Republican candidate would look like this:

The Democrats have one weakness: Suburbs.

If the GOP manages to clean house, expunge the teabaggers, and fix women's issues, the Democratic firewall is all of 40 EVs:

Why WV?  Because no Soccer-Mom-appealin', slick-talkin' Republican is winnin' no coal miners.

[Orser67]

Like someone else said, I think it only happens if a right-wing candidate splits the vote. E.g. Clinton wins 37 percent, Christie wins 34 percent, and Cruz wins 29 percent in some of the various Western and Southern states.

Otherwise, I think polarization is just too high right now.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Like someone else said, I think it only happens if a right-wing candidate splits the vote. E.g. Clinton wins 37 percent, Christie wins 34 percent, and Cruz wins 29 percent in some of the various Western and Southern states.

Otherwise, I think polarization is just too high right now.

We are geographically polarized, and the parties are at loggerheads, but I think there is large enough percentage of swingable voters out there to create widely different outcomes.  Right now the partisan polarization is hurting Republicans a lot more than it's hurting Democrats.  That doesn't mean the swing voters have turned permanently against them.  Circumstances change.

The swing voters are in the suburbs, especially in the West.  It is entirely possible to conceive of a different set of circumstances, without all that much realignment, with California not only being in reach of the Republicans, but a swing state.  Romney won the OC.  The right GOP candidate could also win San Diego, all the LA burbs, and Sacramento.  And dominate the central valley.

CO and NV would be safe GOP.  NC, GA, and IN could, in the same election, also be swing states.  It would be a very different political map.