2012 as a 60% landslide

[SWE]

Methodology:

1. Divide Obama margin in each state by that state's FiveThirtyEight elasticity score
2. Add 8.9 to the elasticity adjusted margin to determine the margin in an Obama landslide
3. Add 12.8 to the elasticity adjusted margin to determine the margin of victory in a Romney landslide

2012 Obama 60% landslide

361
177

States where the margin of victory was below 5%
1. Missouri, .31
2. Georgia, .31
3. Arizona, .7
4. Alaska, 1.29
5. Indiana, 1.4
6. Montana, 3.29

States where the margin of victory was between 5% and 10%
1. South Carolina, 6.06
2. North Carolina, 6.68
3. Texas, 6.88
4. South Dakota, 7.48
5. North Dakota, 7.88
6. Florida, 9.74

2012 Romney 60% landslide

373
165

States where the margin of victory was below 5%
1. Washington, .36
2. Maine, 2.2
3. Oregon, 2.38
4. Connecticut, 3.55
5. Michigan, 3.58
6. New Mexico, 3.87
7. New Jersey, 4.1
8. Illinois, 4.1

States where the margin of victory was between 5% and 10%
1. Minnesota, 5.27
2. Delaware, 6.21
3. Wisconsin, 6.48
4. Massachusetts, 6.65
5. Iowa, 7.83
6. New Hampshire, 8.46
7. Rhode Island, 8.48
8. Colorado, 8.52
9. California, 9.87

[H. Ross Peron]

Interesting how close Alaska was and how Obama would still have lost Indiana.

[Never]

It's interesting that Obama doing 9 points better than in real life would only garner him three additional states.

[memphis]

What about that one district in Nebraska?

[SWE]

What about that one district in Nebraska?

I couldn't find the elasticity data on the ME and NE districts, so I really couldn't accurately get the results for those. I'm assuming Obama would've won at least one of the districts, but without knowing the elasticity data I can't be entirely sure?

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

It's interesting that Obama doing 9 points better than in real life would only garner him three additional states.

And he does 7% better than '08 but gets fewer ECs. Is that just a really refined targeting effort?

[NHLiberal]

Does this show us that in close elections, the electoral college has a Democratic advantage (i.e. Obama would have won EC if Romney won PV by 2% or less w/ uniform swing), but in landslides, it benefits Republicans (higher ceiling, lower floor, as demonstrated by these maps)?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm guessing you meant to have WV as 50% shade in the Obama landslide? ME shouldn't be 60% Dem in a Romney landslide, though whether it would be Romney or Obama I'm not sure.

From what we've actually seen in the past few election cycles, I think we'd be able to say that in a Romney landslide NE is >60% Romney, with the 3rd district >70%.  In an Obama landslide, 2nd district would go for Obama.

[DS0816]

To carry 60 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote changes the nature of the campaigns with the election season.

I disagree with the premise presented by the OP.

[Skill and Chance]

This is what it would have looked like if a massive October Surprise gave one side a 60% victory and the campaigns had been expecting a close race up to that point.  As others have pointed out, if Obama or Romney were polling at 5X/3X throughout the summer, resources would have been allocated very differently.  The winning side would probably go all out for TX or CA because of the mandate winning both of those states would give.  But if the opposition base was energized for a close race and then it fell apart, these maps are what would would see.  This is basically what went down in 2008 with McCain having a fighting chance until 9/15.

[Beet]

I think this shows how efficient the Obama people were at distributing his campaign efforts.

But even with the Romney map, you can see how polarized we have become, in some ways. In the 1970s and 1980s a 60% landslide would mean 45+ states and over 500 electoral votes.

[RR1997]

Does this show us that in close elections, the electoral college has a Democratic advantage (i.e. Obama would have won EC if Romney won PV by 2% or less w/ uniform swing), but in landslides, it benefits Republicans (higher ceiling, lower floor, as demonstrated by these maps)?

I know this is completely off topic and I apologize, but whatever happened to NHLiberal?

[Nichlemn]

This seems very wrong, are you sure it's not a 55% win either way? Because the borderline states are R+5/D+5ish, I think you've overlooked that each percentage point you gain at the expense of second place doubles your margin of victory.

[Mehmentum]

The highest any candidate has gotten in the 7 elections since Reagan's re-election is 53.4%.

A 60% landslide would suggest something fundamentally changing in our political environment.  In practice things like 538's elasticity score only hold up under a certain range of conditions, and would probably fail in this situation.

The elasticity score is determined by the number of 'swing' voters in the state, but in a 60% landslide suggests that not only is one candidate winning most swing voters, but a large number of people who usually vote for the other party.

Look at what's happened to Brownback and Roberts in Kansas.  A 60% landslide would be the equivalent of what happened in Kansas this year, all over the country.  That would mean that the losing candidate is fighting for his life solidly Democratic/Republican states and only safe in a few strongholds.

[Nichlemn]

This seems very wrong, are you sure it's not a 55% win either way? Because the borderline states are R+5/D+5ish, I think you've overlooked that each percentage point you gain at the expense of second place doubles your margin of victory.

Yep, Missouri's elasticity is 1.01 (close enough to 1 that we can ignore it). Obama won 44.28% in Missouri. If there was a universal swing of 9 percentage points, getting Obama from 51% - 60%, then Obama would win ~53% in Missouri. So clearly, the OP's math is wrong.

[hopper]

2012 Obama 60% landslide

361
177

States where the margin of victory was below 5%

2. Georgia, .31[/color]

Why does Obama win Arizona but lose Georgia? More whites voted for Obama in AZ than GA I guess but GA Hispanics are more Republican than AZ Hispanics? That would be my guess. The black vote in AZ and GA doesn't vary too much I think.

Interestingly enough Obama won 60% of the Electoral Votes and if you eliminate the "White Evangelical or the Born Again Christian Vote" 60% of voters voted for Obama and just 37% of voters voted for Romney. Romney would have lost just 2 states with just 37% of the vote? Wow!

[Nichlemn]

Romney would have lost just 2 states with just 37% of the vote? Wow!

As I pointed out above, it's wrong: this actually represents a 55:45ish map.

[DS0816]

To carry 60 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote changes the nature of the campaigns with the election season.

I disagree with the premise presented by the OP.

Adding to that post—from four months ago—it needs to be noted that to win 60 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote means winning by a percentage margin of 21 points. (That would be 60 to 39 percent. Leave a buffer of one percent to candidates outside the two major political parties.)

To achieve this, with approximately 130 million presidential votes that were cast over the two most recent elections cycles of 2008 and 2012, means winning the U.S. Popular Vote by 27.3 million raw votes. In California, Barack Obama carried the state in both his elections by over 3 million votes. That state's raw-vote count was approximately one-third his national margin of 9.5 million from 2008. In 2012, that state's raw-vote count was more than half of his approximately 5 million. About every 130,000 raw votes represent a full percentage margin with carriage of California. (Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.) If a national margin is 21 percentage points, and 27.3 million, just how well would California get carried? And what that does that mean compared with the rest of the country? I think a 21-point landslide, or 27.3 millions, is going to leave between 6 and 10 states to the losing opposition. And Texas won't refrain from being party of that national tide. It couldn't.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Methodology:

1. Divide Obama margin in each state by that state's FiveThirtyEight elasticity score
2. Add 8.9 to the elasticity adjusted margin to determine the margin in an Obama landslide
3. Add 12.8 to the elasticity adjusted margin to determine the margin of victory in a Romney landslide

I believe what you want to do is add to the actual state result the product of the elasticity score multiplied by 8.9 or 12.8 respectively.
So for LA, with an elasticity score of .79:  (8.9)(.79)+40.58=47.62% Obama in Obama 60% landslide, with Romney's result being (8.9)(-.79)+(57.78)= 50.75% Romney.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

. . . and thus, a 60% Obama landslide would be

462 - 76.

60% Romney landslide:

489 - 49

[Mr. Illini]

60% Romney landslide:

489 - 49

This is terrifying.

[Vega]

Would Obama have gotten past 80% in Hawaii? I imagine that would be the best result for a candidate in their state of birth since Carter.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Would Obama have gotten past 80% in Hawaii? I imagine that would be the best result for a candidate in their state of birth since Carter.

Yes. 

Actually Obama in both 2008 and 2012 got a higher percentage in HI than Carter did in GA.   Obama in 2008 had the highest percentage performance of a candidate in their birth state since Coolidge in 1924.