Path to 400 electoral votes?

[President Johnson]

Any thoughts when we'll see a candidate winning 400+ electoral votes again (that's almost 75% of the electoral college)? Is this ever going to happen again?

The last president to achieve this was Bush 1 in 1988. However, between 1912 and 1988 it occured several times: 1912, 1920, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988 (14 out of 20; and 1924 came close to 400).

Its going to be really tough for both parties; but almost imposible for the GOP.

This is the absolut maximum potential I see for Republicans; and this scenario is still almost 40 votes short of the magic 400 (361 electoral votes):

Path for Democrats (very very difficult; 401 electoral votes in this scenario):

[bobloblaw]

Next to Nil.


I would like to see a test case for the Dem party that would show just how deep their support is in Presidential elections

A Dem wins and take the oath of office with 4.5% unemployment, a balanced budget and 3.5% GDP growth. In the 12 months leading up to their reelection, the party is split due to a recession where unemployment is over 7.5%, GDP growth is negative to 0 and the deficit is nearly $2 trillion. What does the EV map look like?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The GOP cpuld easily pick up Minnesota in a blowout - it's quite flexible. Then take out fading white and greying in the NE like Maine and Connecticut, as well as NJ and maybe Delaware. That would equal 36 electoral votes by my count (excluding Maine's 1st) - still just short. There would have to be something else, like a urban appeal for those three big states that hog electoral votes.

[Sir Mohamed]

400 electoral votes are (almost) impossible under the circumstances mentioned above. Maybe in 2020 if Hillary is extremely popular. With a balanced budget, 3.5% GDP growth, more income equality and the lack of severe foreign problems.

But there is one path to 400+ electoral votes: With a strong third party run, that devides the votes of one party into two; simiular like it happened in 1912. Wilson received only 42% of the popular vote, but won 81% of the electoral vote.

Probably with one candidate from the Tea Party and another from the GOP estabishment.

A 2016 scenrio, although it's pretty unlikely to happen that soon:

Democratic: Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine: 445 EV. (45%)
Republican: Jeb Bush/Chris Cristie: 76 EV. (30%)
Tea Party: Ted Cruz/Michele Bachman: 17 EV. (23%)

[DS0816]

By the post-1980s standards, it would be a Republican carrying 41 states (minimum) and a Democrat winning 33 states (minimum).

The Republicans have averaged, at best, 9 electoral votes per carried state; and that's with the two elections of George W. Bush. The Democrats have averaged between 11 and 13 electoral votes, per carried state, with losing and winning candidates.

On the Republican side: Take George W. Bush's combined maps of 2000 and 2004. That's 32 individual states. (Bush won 30 and 31 states, respectively, in 2000 and 2004. He carried New Hampshire in 2000; lost it but flipped Iowa and New Mexico in 2004.) And nine more would come: Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin. Total (latest allocation) 409 electoral votes.

On the Democratic side: Take the 28 states, plus Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District and District of Columbia, carried in 2008 by Barack Obama. And five more would come: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, and Montana. That would actually add up to 399 electoral votes. (They were over 400 in the 2000s.) To officially reach 400, one more state (because of its recent close margins spread to Georgia) I would envision is: South Carolina. That would be 34 states. Total (latest allocation) 408 electoral votes.

[RINO Tom]

400 EVs for Hillary:

400 EVs for Kasich:

It makes you realize how much harder it is for the GOP to get to that benchmark.

[Mister Mets]

As a small point, the Maine congressional district with the Republican congressman would probably go to the Republican party in anything close to a 400 EV blowout.

[ElectionsGuy]

Republicans

R: 408
D: 130

Would require 57-58% of the popular vote

Democats

D: 402
R: 136

Would require 58-59% of the popular vote.

[President Johnson]

The scenario that Mohamed posted seems to be the most likely; only with Democrats winning at least 50-51% of the vote. 58+% are unlikely for both parties. I think MN, NJ and IL are impossible for the GOP to win. IL and NJ have Republican governors, but WV has also a Democratic governor, but Democrats won't carry the state in presidential election.

[/]

Democrats (not that hard):

405 to 133

Republicans (near impossible):

401 to 137

[TDAS04]

Very unlikely in the near future.