Why in the last 2 cycles did the trend of complete landslide victories stop?

[Jacobtm]

From the conclusion of WWI, until the election of 2000, the winner of almost every Presidential election recieved more than twice the amount of votes in the Electoral College that his opponent did. The only 2 exceptions to this were in 1960 and 1968.

So what about the past two elections caused the states to divide so evenly when they haven't consecutively done that in recent history?

[Padfoot]

The impeachment of Bill Clinton and the War in Iraq.  Both of these things sharpened the partisanship in Washington resulting in an essentialy 50-50 divide in American politics making landslide electoral victories very difficult.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Actually, it pretty simple.

In 2000 the Democrat party had the best Get Out the Vote drive since Roosevelt.

In 2004 the GOTV effort was outsourced to left wing groups funded by a criminal billionaire, George Soros (convicted in France):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64659-2005Mar24.html

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=aVPlVg8vm8wg

[nclib]

I think the greater importance of social issues also increased partisanship.

From the conclusion of WWI, until the election of 2000, the winner of almost every Presidential election recieved more than twice the amount of votes in the Electoral College that his opponent did. The only 2 exceptions to this were in 1960 and 1968.

1976.

[Colin]

Well personally I wouldn't go off Electoral College numbers but more off of popular vote numbers, but to answer the question it's been varying over the last 100 years or so. 1916, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2004 were vary close elections. 1912 and 1992 were special cases because of the large third party presence and relegate those to what I would call the special elections catagory. From 1920-1940 you had the Era of Landslides, when economic factors, the Roaring Twenties and the Great Depression respectively, imbibed the specific parties with commanding support from the American people. 1944, 1988, and 1996 where what I'd put into the comfortable margin catagory with the rest, outside of the Era of Landslides, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, being true landslides.

For all those other years they all are shown to be in two catagories, either extremist opposition or great figure landslides. Extremist opposition is highlighted by the candidacies of both conservative Barry Goldwater and leftist George McGovern both of whose ideologies were far enough from the political centre at the time to ensure a large margin to the opponent. Great figure is highlighted in 1952, 1956, 1980, and 1984, when the two Republican behemoths of the last half century, Eisenhower and Reagan, were elected both for their personal charm, in Eisenhower's case his upstanding war record, and then guided their country through a time of overall prosperity, though both had to face economic downturns during their terms.

In 2000 and 2004, though, you did not have a great figure nor an extremist opposition, nor were their any great figures coatails, Clinton was a great president but he didn't create the same dynamism for future candidates that FDR or Reagan did, or opposition stupidity, to create a comfortable margin election. Both parties were headed by lacklustre figures who the general populace saw as respective of their parties positions on the issues. Thus without a charismatic charmer like Reagan or a person the populace viewed as an extremist like Goldwater or McGovern the election cycle became increasingly polarized between the opposing candidates and led to these close elections.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think Colin is close to the money.

Let's look at those extremely close elections.

1916 - Fear of entry into WWI
1948 - Roosevelt's VP wins in his own right
1960 -  A close election between a VP and rising star
1968 - Anti-election
1976 - Post-watergate
2000 - Close election between a VP and an establishment player
2004 - Post 9/11 Iraq War.

So the clear correlation is close elections come in times of crisis or especially after a 2-term president. 1988 was an exception because, unlike FDR or Reagan (as Colin correctly stated) Clinton did not create a movement.
Taking 2004 out of the equation, 2000 and 1976 were the closest elections in the last 40 years. What made them special... two quite boring candidates... or at the very least, uninspiring.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Well personally I wouldn't go off Electoral College numbers but more off of popular vote numbers, but to answer the question it's been varying over the last 100 years or so. 1916, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2004 were vary close elections. 1912 and 1992 were special cases because of the large third party presence and relegate those to what I would call the special elections catagory. From 1920-1940 you had the Era of Landslides, when economic factors, the Roaring Twenties and the Great Depression respectively, imbibed the specific parties with commanding support from the American people. 1944, 1988, and 1996 where what I'd put into the comfortable margin catagory with the rest, outside of the Era of Landslides, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, being true landslides.

For all those other years they all are shown to be in two catagories, either extremist opposition or great figure landslides. Extremist opposition is highlighted by the candidacies of both conservative Barry Goldwater and leftist George McGovern both of whose ideologies were far enough from the political centre at the time to ensure a large margin to the opponent. Great figure is highlighted in 1952, 1956, 1980, and 1984, when the two Republican behemoths of the last half century, Eisenhower and Reagan, were elected both for their personal charm, in Eisenhower's case his upstanding war record, and then guided their country through a time of overall prosperity, though both had to face economic downturns during their terms.

In 2000 and 2004, though, you did not have a great figure nor an extremist opposition, nor were their any great figures coatails, Clinton was a great president but he didn't create the same dynamism for future candidates that FDR or Reagan did, or opposition stupidity, to create a comfortable margin election. Both parties were headed by lacklustre figures who the general populace saw as respective of their parties positions on the issues. Thus without a charismatic charmer like Reagan or a person the populace viewed as an extremist like Goldwater or McGovern the election cycle became increasingly polarized between the opposing candidates and led to these close elections.

That is a very good explanation.  I think we are now in an era of close elections - 2008 will definitely be close. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

After Reagan and Clinton, landslides were going to stop eventually, the industrial states in the midwest and two coast are traditionally blue and the south and plains are traditionally conservative, it is only those heartland states like MO, WV, NV, FL, OH, IA, NM and NH that were the true swing states.

[Colin]

Well personally I wouldn't go off Electoral College numbers but more off of popular vote numbers, but to answer the question it's been varying over the last 100 years or so. 1916, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2004 were vary close elections. 1912 and 1992 were special cases because of the large third party presence and relegate those to what I would call the special elections catagory. From 1920-1940 you had the Era of Landslides, when economic factors, the Roaring Twenties and the Great Depression respectively, imbibed the specific parties with commanding support from the American people. 1944, 1988, and 1996 where what I'd put into the comfortable margin catagory with the rest, outside of the Era of Landslides, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, being true landslides.

For all those other years they all are shown to be in two catagories, either extremist opposition or great figure landslides. Extremist opposition is highlighted by the candidacies of both conservative Barry Goldwater and leftist George McGovern both of whose ideologies were far enough from the political centre at the time to ensure a large margin to the opponent. Great figure is highlighted in 1952, 1956, 1980, and 1984, when the two Republican behemoths of the last half century, Eisenhower and Reagan, were elected both for their personal charm, in Eisenhower's case his upstanding war record, and then guided their country through a time of overall prosperity, though both had to face economic downturns during their terms.

In 2000 and 2004, though, you did not have a great figure nor an extremist opposition, nor were their any great figures coatails, Clinton was a great president but he didn't create the same dynamism for future candidates that FDR or Reagan did, or opposition stupidity, to create a comfortable margin election. Both parties were headed by lacklustre figures who the general populace saw as respective of their parties positions on the issues. Thus without a charismatic charmer like Reagan or a person the populace viewed as an extremist like Goldwater or McGovern the election cycle became increasingly polarized between the opposing candidates and led to these close elections.

That is a very good explanation.  I think we are now in an era of close elections - 2008 will definitely be close. 

This has happened before as well. From 1876 to 1896 every election was within five points in the popular vote. So we are now just returning to a cycle of that sort of election.

[memphis]

In addition to what everybody else has said, I think that the refinement of computers and polling have let both sides figure out exactly what they need to say. It makes for a draw.