Is a landslide possible?

[pbrower2a]

The regional polarization of the American vote remains intact. Recent polls suggest that President Obama remains extremely popular in New York and extremely unpopular in Utah and Arkansas. Many Americans still won't vote for any black person for any office. No way can President Obama win a landslide analogous to Reagan 1984 or LBJ 1964, when states that ordinarily vote for Republican nominees vote for Obama (or against a weak Republican nominee).

Here's what an Obama landslide in 2012 looks like: he wins everything that he won in 2008, but adds

Missouri
Montana
Georgia
Arizona
South Carolina
North Dakota
South Dakota
NE-01
Texas


which is everything that Obama lost by less than 12%. That is about enough to have a landslide reminiscent of Eisenhower in 1956. The key is Texas, obviously a difficult state for any Democrat to win in a statewide election. Hint: Carter barely won it, and if any Democrat was going to win Texas, it would have been Bill Clinton -- who didn't. Obama is much unlike the sort of politician who can win Texas in a a statewide election. Obama is just too much a Yankee to win Texas, and I doubt that he will go on any quixotic effort to win Texas.

It is remarkable that he won Indiana and Virginia, states that hadn't voted for a Democratic nominee since 1964.

[pbrower2a]

I look at this election (third parties ignored):

* **** **1944 Presidential General Election Results** **** *
-

   Franklin Roosevelt   Harry Truman   Democratic    25,612,916    53.39%    432    81.4%
   Thomas Dewey   John Bricker   Republican    22,017,929    45.89%      99    18.6%

and this one:

* **** **2008 Presidential General Election Results** **** *
-
  
   Barack Obama  Joseph R. Biden   Democratic    69,499,428    52.87%    365    67.8%
   John McCain      Sarah H. Palin           Republican    59,950,323    45.60%    173    32.2%



as good analogues  for the popular vote. The first was a blowout in electoral votes, but the second was understood to be a close election until very late in the cycle. The difference between the percentages of popular vote were almost identical -- 7.5% and 7.2%.  Sure, the two candidates were very different; in the first, the winner was close to the end of his life and the loser was about as close to the start of his political life as one could be and be President. To say that a war was going on in both 1944 and 2008 is to ignore the differences of the wars; World War II was going catastrophically -- for America's enemies, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were going badly.

Aside from winning the South by huge margins, FDR lost Kansas by 21%, Nebraska and South Dakota by roughly 17%, Vermont by 14%, North Dakota by about 8%, Colorado by about 7%, Indiana by about 6%. Maine by about 5%,  Iowa by 4.5%, Wyoming by 2.5%,  Wisconsin by about 2%, and Ohio by less than 0.4%.  FDR won 36 of the 48 states, and was within 4% of winning three more.  If one contrasts Obama, one finds that he lost two states by more than 30%, four more by more than 21% (FDR lost nothing by such margins in 1944!),  six more by more than 14% (worse than FDR's fourth-worst state), and seven more by more than 8%.
 
I don't expect the polarization of 2008 to disappear easily. President Obama could win 57% of the vote and still win about 385 electoral votes.

[pbrower2a]

http://

Anything can happen in an election that is over 2 years away. Bush Sr. fell from a 91% to losing an election and Clinton was in the 30's and won reelection. Obama is nowhere near these 2 extremes so it's hard to say. Right now this is the guaranteed map as I'm calling it.

California, New Jersey, and Oregon seem safer for  Obama than, for example Texas, let alone either of the Dakotas or Georgia is for the Republicans.

I do not think Indiana, North Carolina, or NE-02 safe for the Republicans; Obama won them.

Much will happen by November 2012..