Are we overdue for a presidential landslide (double-digit win) in 2016?

[Adam Griffin]

People talk about there being periods of heightened partisanship and polarization throughout American history, but in presidential elections and since 1828...the only comparable example of so many consecutive elections being relatively close as they have from 1988-2012 is 1876-1900. It actually is worse than the modern era when you look at a couple of variables there.

It seems that every time we have had 2 or 3 relatively close elections, we have entered a period of realignments and/or double-digit blow-outs that can swing wildly in both directions before settling again. Obviously there are especially unique dynamics that are responsible for some individual instances.

However, if 2016 resembles recent elections, then this will become the longest period in American history in which no president by won by more than 10 points. Is our country now irreversibly broken with respect to polarization or are we close to one party getting a major ass-whooping in a presidential election?

Margin of Victory, 1828-2012:

It's worth noting below that some of these margins are caused by there being 3 or more candidates in the race who all performed respectably by today's standards, but nevertheless, one could still ask why such a scenario isn't manifesting today and/or will it soon (and therefore fuel a nominal blow-out).

[Torie]

Overdue or not, odds are we are in store for one this time.

[dspNY]

If any candidate will cause one, its Trump who will have to eat a double-digit landslide loss to Hillary

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I doubt it. Partisanship and polarization are too strong.


Yeah, Trump has the brunt of negative attention right now, but once he gets the nomination there will probaby be a rally around the flag effect. Additionally, Republicans will suddenly remember that they're running against Hillary Clinton, a woman they have been conditioned to hate with intense vitriol for 24+ years. Even if Trump has terrible favorability ratings among Republicans, most will still vote for him. Hillary will pick up a good number of R-leaners with weak party loyalty, but it won't be a landslide.

The only way I see a 10+ point win is if Hillary gets Obama's 53% (probably on insane margins in safe-Dem states) and maybe the Libertarian Party makes a strong play for anti-Trump Republicans if he still does insane sh_t and snags 3-4% of the vote, which would get him down to 43% if subtracted from Romney's 47%.

[Averroës Nix]

No. If we get a landslide in 2016, it will say more about how bizarre this cycle has been than anything else. Granted, things may stay weird for the foreseeable future...

[Xing]

Presidential elections are not like seismic events. The only patterns that exist are the ones which we look for. The results of this year will depend on the candidates, Obama's approval rating, the economy, events around the world, and the overall mood of the electorate, not what we're "due" for.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it's Trump/Hillary we'll have the first election in a long time with two representatives of a dying state.

Yes, we're overdue for a realigning election. Hillary will Hillaryslide Trump out of the water.

[IceSpear]

The 24/7 media cycle won't let there be a mega landslide in this day and age. A horse race is good for ratings. There's a reason (aside from their personal vendettas) they've spent the last 2 years tearing down the person who was once the most popular politician in the country who led all opponents by 20+ points.

[Virginiá]

Presidential elections are not like seismic events. The only patterns that exist are the ones which we look for. The results of this year will depend on the candidates, Obama's approval rating, the economy, events around the world, and the overall mood of the electorate, ...

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying there are no real patterns? Because if so, that is not true at all. When you combine all the data, including the overall issues of the era and where each party stands, among other things, it becomes easier to predict election results to varying degrees. Looking back at history, there are certainly a lot of connections between election results.

not what we're "due" for.

America goes through consistent eras of party dominance. Political preferences do tend to realign over many elections (which is why I'm against the idea that a single election can realign anything). With that in mind, we are certainly overdue for such a landslide.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it's sad Walker dropped out.

[dax00]

As much as I hate to admit, Trump would beat Sanders by about 4 points. Not as much as he'd wallop the presumptive jailbird by (12+), but still...

[Virginiá]

As much as I hate to admit, Trump would beat Sanders by about 4 points. Not as much as he'd wallop the presumptive jailbird by (12+), but still...

So if he is going to win so YUGELY, then why does he consistently lose big in the polls? In fact, he loses by even more to Sanders. Polls this far out may have some inaccuracies for various reasons, but they do say something about him. If the election were held today, he would lose badly.

[Xing]

Presidential elections are not like seismic events. The only patterns that exist are the ones which we look for. The results of this year will depend on the candidates, Obama's approval rating, the economy, events around the world, and the overall mood of the electorate, ...

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying there are no real patterns? Because if so, that is not true at all. When you combine all the data, including the overall issues of the era and where each party stands, among other things, it becomes easier to predict election results to varying degrees. Looking back at history, there are certainly a lot of connections between election results.

not what we're "due" for.

America goes through consistent eras of party dominance. Political preferences do tend to realign over many elections (which is why I'm against the idea that a single election can realign anything). With that in mind, we are certainly overdue for such a landslide.

I'm saying that there's no consistent time table in terms of when landslides occur and for which parties. A lot of people like to point out that the current pattern is the each party has the White House for eight years, and then it's the next party's "turn".  Which means the Republicans should win this year. Some folks will claim that "re-aligning" elections occur every 20-30 years, so 2016 should be another one. My point is that we're not on a set time table for a landslide election or an election where the White House switches parties.

[dax00]

If the election were held today, he would lose badly.

True. But It's not being held today. And nobody can anticipate how powerful Trump's brand of psyche-piercing attack campaign will factor into the GE. I'm merely accommodating for the unprecedented.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes

[Nym90]

Overdue? No. Such things are random, though increased polarization does make one much less likely.

Trump as the nominee makes it a lot more likely, but remember that Clinton is pretty unpopular, too. If Obama could run for reelection against Trump he'd be in line for a 12-15 point victory, easily.

[Virginiá]

I'm saying that there's no consistent time table in terms of when landslides occur and for which parties. A lot of people like to point out that the current pattern is the each party has the White House for eight years, and then it's the next party's "turn".  Which means the Republicans should win this year. Some folks will claim that "re-aligning" elections occur every 20-30 years, so 2016 should be another one. My point is that we're not on a set time table for a landslide election or an election where the White House switches parties.

Oh, okies. Fair enough

A lot of people like to point out that the current pattern is the each party has the White House for eight years, and then it's the next party's "turn".

I never understood why some people think this. In modern times, that has only been the case for 3 different presidents in a row (Clinton=>GWB=>Obama) - 3 different presidents isn't even remotely close to determining a pattern. And as we all know, GWB didn't even win the popular vote in 2000 and was literally hundreds of votes away from losing, which on its own discredits the "8 years fatigue" theory, imo.

I think those people would be surprised just how many times parties have won the White House for more than 2 terms in a row throughout American history. The latest example, 1968 - 1992, Republicans controlled the White House for 20 of those 24 years, and likely would have been all 24 years had Watergate never happened. Even with WG, Carter barely won that election.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it's sad Walker dropped out.

Huh?

[IceSpear]

Overdue? No. Such things are random, though increased polarization does make one much less likely.

Trump as the nominee makes it a lot more likely, but remember that Clinton is pretty unpopular, too. If Obama could run for reelection against Trump he'd be in line for a 12-15 point victory, easily.

That would be an interesting hypothetical actually. Would the media's love for a horse race and ratings outweigh their love for Obama? I think they'd sufficiently tear him down enough to spin the election as close, but not enough to actually threaten his re-election. Though that's a tough needle to thread.

[libertpaulian]

As much as I hate to admit, Trump would beat Sanders by about 4 points. Not as much as he'd wallop the presumptive jailbird by (12+), but still...

So if he is going to win so YUGELY, then why does he consistently lose big in the polls? In fact, he loses by even more to Sanders. Polls this far out may have some inaccuracies for various reasons, but they do say something about him. If the election were held today, he would lose badly.

I'm no Trump supporter, but I can see some truth to his theory.  Donald Trump is the most unorthodox Presidential candidate in American history.  

When he first announced, everyone thought it was going to be a joke campaign/publicity stunt that would last until just before the first debate.  Then, it was that he'd last until the end of the fall.  Then, it was that he'd last until just before Iowa.  Then, just after the holidays, Trump maintains his lead.  The excuse becomes "He won't make it past Iowa."  Trump gets second place in Iowa.  Pundits begin to say "OK, maybe he's for real.  Let's see how he does in New Hampshire."  Trump gets a respectable win in New Hampshire.  Trump says anti-Bush stuff in SC, pundits say this might be "Peak Trump."  He wins SC anyway.  He also wins Nevada comfortably.  

And you know the rest of the story.

If Trump can do this well given the current political system, I wouldn't count out a Trump victory in November.  It won't be easy, but it's not impossible either.  It's not like Trump is facing Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Deval Patrick, Cory Booker, or some other Democratic superstar.  He's facing Hillary Clinton, who's not exactly a beloved political figure herself.  

And yes, I do realize that the "woman" factor is strong.  However, it's important to note that most female Millennials and Gen X'ers don't like Hillary Clinton.  They could either stay home, vote Green (Jill Stein is basically a female Sanders), or even hold their noses for Trump.

[Virginiá]

If Trump can do this well given the current political system, I wouldn't count out a Trump victory in November.  It won't be easy, but it's not impossible either.  It's not like Trump is facing Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Deval Patrick, Cory Booker, or some other Democratic superstar.  He's facing Hillary Clinton, who's not exactly a beloved political figure herself.  

And yes, I do realize that the "woman" factor is strong.  However, it's important to note that most female Millennials and Gen X'ers don't like Hillary Clinton.  They could either stay home, vote Green (Jill Stein is basically a female Sanders), or even hold their noses for Trump.

But once again, I have to go back to the polls. Millennials hate Trump and in GE early polls, they side heavily with Clinton against him, anywhere from 60% - 66%. Those are Obama numbers for Clinton. I think the last unfavorable rating for Trump among Millennials as a whole was like 80% or more. They aren't going to vote for him over Clinton - At least based on the current situation, and Trump can't just erase the past by moderating. I'd be pretty surprised if he truly changed his entire character from now until November just to seem a bit more sane. I get why you're suggesting it, but there is no data or proof to back it up, and in fact the data we do have suggests the polar opposite.

Everyone keeps saying Trump can pull off these highly unlikely scenarios just because he has defied conventional wisdom so far, but that's not really proof. That's just doubt that can be sewn into anything. The Republican primary process the last few cycles has been ridiculous, so for Trump to be doing so well in them is not really a sign of him being a powerful candidate with actual potential - it just means he has tricked a hell of a lot more radical & conservative primary voters who are already more prone to bad decisions.

Finally, demographics are going to play a big part in this election, just like 2008 and 2012, and thanks to Trump, Hispanic turnout is likely to increase rather sharply and black turnout, contrary to what people think, is not going to plummet because Obama isn't on the ticket. Historical patterns and midterm data shows steady participation rates. Minorities more or less constituted the bulk of Obama's 2012 winning margin, so imagine how badly Trump is going to do on that front? I can't see how he wins, because he isn't going to top Romney's numbers among whites. No data suggests he will.

I just don't see it, and not for a lack of trying, either.

[MK]

If Trump can do this well given the current political system, I wouldn't count out a Trump victory in November.  It won't be easy, but it's not impossible either.  It's not like Trump is facing Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Deval Patrick, Cory Booker, or some other Democratic superstar.  He's facing Hillary Clinton, who's not exactly a beloved political figure herself.  

And yes, I do realize that the "woman" factor is strong.  However, it's important to note that most female Millennials and Gen X'ers don't like Hillary Clinton.  They could either stay home, vote Green (Jill Stein is basically a female Sanders), or even hold their noses for Trump.

But once again, I have to go back to the polls. Millennials hate Trump and in GE early polls, they side heavily with Clinton against him, anywhere from 60% - 66%. Those are Obama numbers for Clinton. I think the last unfavorable rating for Trump among Millennials as a whole was like 80% or more. They aren't going to vote for him over Clinton - At least based on the current situation, and Trump can't just erase the past by moderating. I'd be pretty surprised if he truly changed his entire character from now until November just to seem a bit more sane. I get why you're suggesting it, but there is no data or proof to back it up, and in fact the data we do have suggests the polar opposite.

Everyone keeps saying Trump can pull off these highly unlikely scenarios just because he has defied conventional wisdom so far, but that's not really proof. That's just doubt that can be sewn into anything. The Republican primary process the last few cycles has been ridiculous, so for Trump to be doing so well in them is not really a sign of him being a powerful candidate with actual potential - it just means he has tricked a hell of a lot more radical & conservative primary voters who are already more prone to bad decisions.

Finally, demographics are going to play a big part in this election, just like 2008 and 2012, and thanks to Trump, Hispanic turnout is likely to increase rather sharply and black turnout, contrary to what people think, is not going to plummet because Obama isn't on the ticket. Historical patterns and midterm data shows steady participation rates. Minorities more or less constituted the bulk of Obama's 2012 winning margin, so imagine how badly Trump is going to do on that front? I can't see how he wins, because he isn't going to top Romney's numbers among whites. No data suggests he will.

I just don't see it, and not for a lack of trying, either.

How much is that the GOP primary effect?       I believe that a disciplined Trump GE campagain could really challenge Hillary.  Key word is disciplined campagain by trump.  He has that superstar recognition going for him something Hillary has issues with (see 2008).   No question  Trump has a steep hill to climb with the MSM going hard for Clintion.

[libertpaulian]

If Trump can do this well given the current political system, I wouldn't count out a Trump victory in November.  It won't be easy, but it's not impossible either.  It's not like Trump is facing Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Deval Patrick, Cory Booker, or some other Democratic superstar.  He's facing Hillary Clinton, who's not exactly a beloved political figure herself.  

And yes, I do realize that the "woman" factor is strong.  However, it's important to note that most female Millennials and Gen X'ers don't like Hillary Clinton.  They could either stay home, vote Green (Jill Stein is basically a female Sanders), or even hold their noses for Trump.

But once again, I have to go back to the polls. Millennials hate Trump and in GE early polls, they side heavily with Clinton against him, anywhere from 60% - 66%. Those are Obama numbers for Clinton. I think the last unfavorable rating for Trump among Millennials as a whole was like 80% or more. They aren't going to vote for him over Clinton - At least based on the current situation, and Trump can't just erase the past by moderating. I'd be pretty surprised if he truly changed his entire character from now until November just to seem a bit more sane. I get why you're suggesting it, but there is no data or proof to back it up, and in fact the data we do have suggests the polar opposite.

Everyone keeps saying Trump can pull off these highly unlikely scenarios just because he has defied conventional wisdom so far, but that's not really proof. That's just doubt that can be sewn into anything. The Republican primary process the last few cycles has been ridiculous, so for Trump to be doing so well in them is not really a sign of him being a powerful candidate with actual potential - it just means he has tricked a hell of a lot more radical & conservative primary voters who are already more prone to bad decisions.

Finally, demographics are going to play a big part in this election, just like 2008 and 2012, and thanks to Trump, Hispanic turnout is likely to increase rather sharply and black turnout, contrary to what people think, is not going to plummet because Obama isn't on the ticket. Historical patterns and midterm data shows steady participation rates. Minorities more or less constituted the bulk of Obama's 2012 winning margin, so imagine how badly Trump is going to do on that front? I can't see how he wins, because he isn't going to top Romney's numbers among whites. No data suggests he will.

I just don't see it, and not for a lack of trying, either.

I'm not saying it's going to happen for sure, like some delusional Trumpkins are guaranteeing.  However, I am trying to make the point that it's not as impossible or insurmountable as Trump's detractors are asserting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Would be nice, but it's far too early to tell.

[MIKESOWELL]

Being that we have not had an undisputed landslide IN 32 years,  yeah I think we are long overdue for one. It just may happen this year. Like a hurricane, tornado, nor'easter though, everything has to come in place just right.