What will it have to take to have a 500+ EV landslide occur today?

[Thomas]

State what would need to happen for a candidate to pull that off today?

[twenty42]

One of three scenarios...

1) A wildly popular incumbent president (70-80% approval rating) presiding over a booming economy and a peaceful world stage plunders a terrible opponent.

2) A wildly unpopular incumbent president (15-25% approval rating) presiding over an economic depression and/or an unpopular war gets plundered by a flawless challenger.

3) A colossal third-party candidacy takes root and splits one of the parties in half, resulting in the other party benefiting from the fracture.

[here2view]

One of three scenarios...

1) A wildly popular incumbent president (70-80% approval rating) presiding over a booming economy and a peaceful world stage plunders a terrible opponent.

2) A wildly unpopular incumbent president (15-25% approval rating) presiding over an economic depression and/or an unpopular war gets plundered by a flawless challenger.

3) A colossal third-party candidacy takes root and splits one of the parties in half, resulting in the other party benefiting from the fracture.

I feel 1 and 2 are far more likely than 3. Even if the 3rd scenario happens this third-party likely wins enough electoral votes in junction with one of the major parties to prevent the other major party from clearing 500. Like it could be a 450/50/38 split.

Due to current polarization I think even 400+ would be a stretch. Obama only got 365, and that was after 8 years of a Republican President who had 25% approvals at the end, a Recession occurring, and two unpopular wars. Even though he was viewed as a messiah by some he couldn't clear 400.

I can't even imagine how bad, or good, things would be for someone to clear 500. Politics have drastically changed since Reagan in 1984.

[Skill and Chance]

One of three scenarios...

1) A wildly popular incumbent president (70-80% approval rating) presiding over a booming economy and a peaceful world stage plunders a terrible opponent.

2) A wildly unpopular incumbent president (15-25% approval rating) presiding over an economic depression and/or an unpopular war gets plundered by a flawless challenger.

3) A colossal third-party candidacy takes root and splits one of the parties in half, resulting in the other party benefiting from the fracture.

I feel 1 and 2 are far more likely than 3. Even if the 3rd scenario happens this third-party likely wins enough electoral votes in junction with one of the major parties to prevent the other major party from clearing 500. Like it could be a 450/50/38 split.

Due to current polarization I think even 400+ would be a stretch. Obama only got 365, and that was after 8 years of a Republican President who had 25% approvals at the end, a Recession occurring, and two unpopular wars. Even though he was viewed as a messiah by some he couldn't clear 400.

I can't even imagine how bad, or good, things would be for someone to clear 500. Politics have drastically changed since Reagan in 1984.

Strongly disagree here.  I think the most likely scenario for a near sweep of the EC is a new 1912, with almost all states decided by pluralities.  To get to 500+ EV in this era simply by having a popular/unpopular incumbent requires too many committed partisans switching sides.  A 3rd party getting 20-30% leaves more room for places like CA and AL to end up voting for the "wrong" party.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

At this point, the only way I see this happening is if one party nominates someone who is a convicted pedophile or murderer.

[here2view]

One of three scenarios...

1) A wildly popular incumbent president (70-80% approval rating) presiding over a booming economy and a peaceful world stage plunders a terrible opponent.

2) A wildly unpopular incumbent president (15-25% approval rating) presiding over an economic depression and/or an unpopular war gets plundered by a flawless challenger.

3) A colossal third-party candidacy takes root and splits one of the parties in half, resulting in the other party benefiting from the fracture.

I feel 1 and 2 are far more likely than 3. Even if the 3rd scenario happens this third-party likely wins enough electoral votes in junction with one of the major parties to prevent the other major party from clearing 500. Like it could be a 450/50/38 split.

Due to current polarization I think even 400+ would be a stretch. Obama only got 365, and that was after 8 years of a Republican President who had 25% approvals at the end, a Recession occurring, and two unpopular wars. Even though he was viewed as a messiah by some he couldn't clear 400.

I can't even imagine how bad, or good, things would be for someone to clear 500. Politics have drastically changed since Reagan in 1984.

Strongly disagree here.  I think the most likely scenario for a near sweep of the EC is a new 1912, with almost all states decided by pluralities.  To get to 500+ EV in this era simply by having a popular/unpopular incumbent requires too many committed partisans switching sides.  A 3rd party getting 20-30% leaves more room for places like CA and AL to end up voting for the "wrong" party.

More parties in the race makes it less likely for one to get above 500. It's easier for it to happen with two rather than three. There's little chance that every state, minus like five, votes for the "wrong party." That's what it would take.

[Orser67]

One of three scenarios...

1) A wildly popular incumbent president (70-80% approval rating) presiding over a booming economy and a peaceful world stage plunders a terrible opponent.

2) A wildly unpopular incumbent president (15-25% approval rating) presiding over an economic depression and/or an unpopular war gets plundered by a flawless challenger.

3) A colossal third-party candidacy takes root and splits one of the parties in half, resulting in the other party benefiting from the fracture.

I feel 1 and 2 are far more likely than 3. Even if the 3rd scenario happens this third-party likely wins enough electoral votes in junction with one of the major parties to prevent the other major party from clearing 500. Like it could be a 450/50/38 split.

Due to current polarization I think even 400+ would be a stretch. Obama only got 365, and that was after 8 years of a Republican President who had 25% approvals at the end, a Recession occurring, and two unpopular wars. Even though he was viewed as a messiah by some he couldn't clear 400.

I can't even imagine how bad, or good, things would be for someone to clear 500. Politics have drastically changed since Reagan in 1984.

Strongly disagree here.  I think the most likely scenario for a near sweep of the EC is a new 1912, with almost all states decided by pluralities.  To get to 500+ EV in this era simply by having a popular/unpopular incumbent requires too many committed partisans switching sides.  A 3rd party getting 20-30% leaves more room for places like CA and AL to end up voting for the "wrong" party.

Agreed. There are too many states in which either party struggles to get above 40%. The only way a Democratic presidential nominee is winning Alabama or Tennessee anytime soon is if a conservative third-party splits the vote. The same could be said for California and New York for the GOP.

[pbrower2a]

One of three scenarios...

1) A wildly popular incumbent president (70-80% approval rating) presiding over a booming economy and a peaceful world stage plunders a terrible opponent.

2) A wildly unpopular incumbent president (15-25% approval rating) presiding over an economic depression and/or an unpopular war gets plundered by a flawless challenger.

3) A colossal third-party candidacy takes root and splits one of the parties in half, resulting in the other party benefiting from the fracture.

1) The last Presidents to get  500 electoral votes were incumbents getting re-elected against very weak opponents -- Reagan against 'in honor of long, loyal, and meritorious service to his party' Walter Mondale in 1984, Nixon against a nominee (George McGovern) portrayed as a dangerous radical in 1972, and FDR against Alf Landon who practically served as token opposition in 1936. The incumbent President had already won by a large margin getting elected and seemed to have solved some big problems.

Donald Trump will not be in this position, having been barely elected in 2016 and probably creating more and worse problems  than he solved.

2) This is worse failure than incumbents Hoover and Carter. You might see this only if the President is seen as a criminal and is facing mass protests.  Trump getting fewer than 39 electoral votes? I don't see this happening.

3) Possible but unlikely. Even Perot failed at that level.

Anything else? Rigged election? I don;t want to imagine the circumstances in which this is possible.           

[cvparty]

roy moore vs jesus

[Progressive Pessimist]

roy moore vs jesus

That immigrant loving, sandal-wearing, long-haired pansy Jew? Nah.

[IceSpear]

roy moore vs jesus

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

For Trump to be implicated right before the election of 2020

[ConservativeCommunist]

This is not possible in today's polarized climate, unless one of the major party nominees is a murderer or rapist or something absurd like that... think Dennis Hastert vs. Al Gore in 2000, if his secrets had been exposed before the election.

[American_Aristocracy]

 One of the parties has to deal with a really bad crisis (an economic one I presume) the opposing party wins in the biggest electoral landslide since Obama. both parties shift dramatically to the left or economic issues. Essentially, the Democrats become European social Democrats while the republicans I presume become the Christian Democrats of some sort.

Honestly, I expect that elections will become more competitive during the next realignment. The chance of an electoral blowout will be much easier than in the current political climate.

[MR DARK BRANDON]

One of three scenarios...

1) A wildly popular incumbent president (70-80% approval rating) presiding over a booming economy and a peaceful world stage plunders a terrible opponent.

2) A wildly unpopular incumbent president (15-25% approval rating) presiding over an economic depression and/or an unpopular war gets plundered by a flawless challenger.

3) A colossal third-party candidacy takes root and splits one of the parties in half, resulting in the other party benefiting from the fracture.

[Podgy the Bear]

For Trump to be implicated right before the election of 2020

It would be more of "fake media" and "drain the swamp" rhetoric to drive out more of the vote.

Seriously, the likelihood of a 500+ EV landslide comes from the combination of a major crisis and a weak opposition candidate.  I suspect that we may see something like that sooner rather than later.

[morgankingsley]

If a huge party split happened in 2016, we could have seen it. If Sanders ran as a independent pulling about 15-20 percent of the vote, it could have happened then for Trump. If say Cruz of Kasich did the same for the republicans, then it could have happened with Hillary. But a third party getting 15-20 percent is nearly impossible. It's only happened 4 times. 1912, 1924, 1968, and 1992. (I count 1968 since it is close enough to 15 that I feel like rounding up wouldn't be considered too outlandish)

[Consciously Unconscious]

For Trump to be implicated right before the election of 2020

I doubt this would be enough for a 500 EV landslide.  Enough Trump supporters just don't care that he would be able to hold his margins in enough states. 

[fluffypanther19]

One of three scenarios...

1) A wildly popular incumbent president (70-80% approval rating) presiding over a booming economy and a peaceful world stage plunders a terrible opponent.

2) A wildly unpopular incumbent president (15-25% approval rating) presiding over an economic depression and/or an unpopular war gets plundered by a flawless challenger.

3) A colossal third-party candidacy takes root and splits one of the parties in half, resulting in the other party benefiting from the fracture.

[MarkD]

One of three scenarios...

1) A wildly popular incumbent president (70-80% approval rating) presiding over a booming economy and a peaceful world stage plunders a terrible opponent.

2) A wildly unpopular incumbent president (15-25% approval rating) presiding over an economic depression and/or an unpopular war gets plundered by a flawless challenger.

3) A colossal third-party candidacy takes root and splits one of the parties in half, resulting in the other party benefiting from the fracture.

I feel #2 is going to happen in two years.

[Bojack Horseman]

Trump's approval rating somehow jumps by 30 points and the election has 2014-level (31%) turnout.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The way the country is polarized, it will be difficulty for ant politician to get over 300 electors again, and Trump's margin was surprisingly

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The way the country is polarized, it will be difficulty for ant politician to get over 300 electors again, and Trump's margin was surprisingly

I genuinely can't tell if this was supposed to be the entire comment.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The way the country is polarized, it will be difficulty for ant politician to get over 300 electors again, and Trump's margin was surprisingly

I genuinely can't tell if this was supposed to be the entire comment.

I was referring to the 306-226 margin Trump got

A Democratic nominee would get, in a normal election 273-280 electors, same with a GOPer.

2012 and 2008 were different animals, when the economy wasn'f fully transformed yet, to a cyber economy.

Interest rates, inflation and sequester cuts, since then have been adapted to shrink the size of gov't, cut social programs and cut corporate taxes, all GOP budgeting ideas. That's why they've (CONSERVATIVES) have been in power since 2010, same thing happened in England.

But, Booker-Ryan ticket can master 273 electors (CO, VA, WI)

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The way the country is polarized, it will be difficulty for ant politician to get over 300 electors again, and Trump's margin was surprisingly

I genuinely can't tell if this was supposed to be the entire comment.

I was referring to the 306-226 margin Trump got

A Democratic nominee would get, in a normal election 273-280 electors, same with a GOPer.

2012 and 2008 were different animals, when the economy wasn'f fully transformed yet, to a cyber economy.

Interest rates, inflation and sequester cuts, since then have been adapted to shrink the size of gov't, cut social programs and cut corporate taxes, all GOP budgeting ideas. That's why they've (CONSERVATIVES) have been in power since 2010, same thing happened in England.

But, Booker-Ryan ticket can master 273 electors (CO, VA, WI)

There's no evidence to back that up, and no reason to believe that that is true. Yes, there are fewer swing states, but there are more than 0. I know you have some insane theory, but the past three elections have all shown differently.