How likely is this scenario?

[Link]

This is "Obama, Worse Case Scenario" map:

If you see this map, we're in a realignment.

Clean break with reality.

[Link]

Delaware hanging red while MA, CA and NY go blue is curious JJ. By the way, the term "realignment" means something with some staying power. Do you remember the 1984 map?  Was that a "realigning" election?  The term "realignment" is overused, and each time it is used, it should be taxed really. I hereby declare it an act in interstate commerce.

There is whole thread on the possibility of a realignment which was started in January 2008.

As I said, "Obama, Worse Case Scenario." It is basically the very left wing states and the home states of Obama and Biden.

Like I said, if we see this map, you are looking at a re-alignment.

1980 was the re-aligning election as I define it.  V. O. Key called the "critical elections" and probably would have defined 1984 as that election.  He did regard 1936 as the "critical election."

I regard it as being a lot more gradual, taking place over 8 years.  We may have started one in 2010, and if we get a map like this one, the probability will be that we are in one.  I basically said by 2016 we'd be in one, but I had no idea what it would look like.

Here is the thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0

In other words:

This is "Obama, Worse Case Scenario" map:

If you see this map, you may be looking into the future.

A re-alignment would produce a map that would resemble this, if not be identical to this.  An Obama defeat, but a strong showing, would not signal a realignment.

Clean break with reality.

[Link]

J.J., I often like to think that you're just trying to be a good political analyst, trying to figure out what will happen.

That was your first mistake.

[Link]

@JJ: The Obama worse-case scenario you present is not entirely impossible, but you're going to need his standing to collapse to such a point where a third-party candidate runs who can siphon off those dissatisfied voters, and that candidate has to get more than 5%.  I consider that a long-shot at this moment.

And even then, NY and CA will be red.  And CT.  And probably MA and ME-1.

In a true realignment, either NY or CA would be blue.  That is what I consider a worst case scenario.

1988, 1992, 1996, or 2008 were not realigning elections (the "Realignment" or "Confirming" elections).  We are talking about something someone sees maybe twice in a lifetime. 
Literally. 

A landslide doesn't necessarily mean a realignment. It can be as simple as one candidate being a lot more popular than another without any greater ramifications.

I think the concept of realigning elections is nonsensical anyway, mostly consisting of seeing patterns in random noise.

Realignment theory has been around for a while, and there is a lot of data supporting it, both historic and data that came in after the theory was first postulated.

Can you point me to some examples of this? From reading the Wikipedia page, it looks like archetypal "fooled by randomness" to me.