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

[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 participants 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. 

[The Vorlon]

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

In 2008 Obama won 52.86% of the popular vote, and the electoral college by 365/178 - and this was after 8 years of GWBush... it is difficult to imagine a more favorable environment to the Dems than 2008.

Forever is a very long time, but under the current highly divided political dynamic I think the 49 state blowouts like Reagan had in 1984 are hard to imagine barring some truly horrid scandal.

[pbrower2a]

Democrat  524
Republican  14

Using current EV totals for the states in question:

1972

Nixon     523
McGovern 15

1984

Reagan 525
Mondale  13

[pbrower2a]

Let's try 1964, when LBJ won 486 to 52.

Democrat  486
Republican  52

This would also fit a Carter-like or Hoover-like failure by an incumbent (elections of 1932 and 1980 were similar).

Of course for the Republican this would imply that he had been elected and had since failed spectacularly as President and gotten caught for it in the re-election bid. 

[pbrower2a]

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.

NE-01 votes much like Texas.
NE-02 votes much like Indiana.
NE-03 votes much like Wyoming.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

NE-01 votes much like Texas.
NE-02 votes much like Indiana.
NE-03 votes much like Wyoming.

You do a disservice to the people of Wyoming.  Save for 2012, when for some reason Utah was very enthusiastic about Romney, Nebraska-3 has consistently been the least Democratic friendly spot in the electoral college.  Not quite bad enough to call it a Republican version of DC, but if Pontius Pilate was running as a Republican and Saint Peter ran as a Democrat, I'd expect it to be close, but Pilate would win because of the (R) after his name.

[politicallefty]

As far as the popular vote goes, Democratic victories in 1936 and 1964 exceeded those of Republicans in 1972 and 1984. The electoral map is definitely harder for Democrats to amass a larger electoral vote total than Republicans in landslides. If everything went right for Democrats, 400+ electoral votes is definitely attainable. However, with current politics as they are, any party looking at 500+ electoral votes would require a significant vote on its own as well as party split on the other side. It's not really a foreseeable option in the near future.