|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 06, 2020, 11:52:03 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  Reagan/Bush v Mondale/Ferraro the last +520 EV victory?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Reagan/Bush v Mondale/Ferraro the last +520 EV victory?  (Read 1754 times)
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 27, 2011, 10:58:29 am »

With the passing of Geraldine Ferraro, I was reminded of the three massive +500 EV landslides of the 20th century: 1984 (525 to 13), 1972 (520 to 17) and 1936 (523 to Cool

As the country has polarized into solid Blue and solid Red states, it seems each party can count on a minimum of 75 EV.

What would it take to see another +520 EV or even a +500 EV winner?



Logged
When Tables Deserve To Die
The Obamanation
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,400
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2011, 11:31:30 am »

Well, I guess you should just look at the situations present in those 3 elections.

Of course, I doubt anyone will ever reach the point of those three.
Logged
Trends are real, and I f**king hate it
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 51,562
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2011, 01:09:41 pm »

2008

Obama : 65.52%, 523 EVs (winning ID by 1 vote)
McCain : 32.95%, 15 EVs (winning WY, OK and UT)

McCain : 59.03%, 524 EVs (winning NY by 1 vote)
Obama : 39.44%, 14 EVs (winning DC, HI, VT and RI)


2004

Kerry : 63.84%, 521 EVs (winning OK by 1 vote)
Bush : 35.16%, 17 EVs (winning UT, WY, ID and NE)

Bush : 61.11%, 523 EVs (winning RI by 1 vote)
Kerry : 37.89%, 15 EVs (winning DC and MA)


2000

Gore : 62.88%, 523 EVs (winning NE by 1 vote)
Bush : 33.37%, 15 EVs (winning UT, WY, ID and AK)

Bush : 61.52%, 531 EVs (winning MA by 1 vote)
Gore : 34.73%, 7 EVs (winning DC and RI)
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,173
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2011, 05:54:29 pm »
« Edited: March 27, 2011, 05:56:50 pm by DS0816 »

It would be with re-election for an incumbent.

For a 2012 President Barack Obama, he would be winning every state but Idaho (4), Oklahoma (7), Utah (6), and Wyoming (3). That would be 518 electoral votes. (Alabama and Mississippi are next; they would reduce his electoral-vote count to 503.)

Some would say it would be Obama winning the U.S. Popular Vote 62 or 63 percent [minimum]. But he could do it with 60 or 61 percent. It just wouldn't be an automatic and uniform state-by-state shift. (District of Columbia is just about at its limit. Maybe the same with, say, Hawaii.) In smaller states, with eight or less electoral votes, it would be narrow flippings (but enough with the female vote).


Nationally:
Female (52) 64% = 33.28%
Male (47) 58% = 27.26%

It would be necessary for the Republicans to nominate a bomb. (Plenty of opportunity there!)
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,809
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2011, 06:06:05 pm »
« Edited: March 28, 2011, 05:08:11 pm by Draka Revivalist »

It's probably a lot more likely than any of us think (that there will be another landslide election).

For starters do we really know that the Electoral College count will be constant in the future?  There is a possibility that the 438 cap on House Reps could be overturned in the next twenty to thirty years.  If the numbers are increased the possibility of a candidate getting 500 Electoral Votes will most likely increase (it could decrease if the other ticket has strength in urban areas) while a decrease in electoral votes will more than likely lead to it becoming harder (unless the count is reduced to less than 500).  I doubt the latter would occur but the former is becoming a possibility by the day as people argue for more direct representation (much like Morgan's argument to increase the number of representatives) or even an abolishment of the US Senate (doubtful, but still a possibility).

Second, there is no telling what politics will look like in the future.  Will the Reactionary Right become so regressive that it starts campaigning for capital punishment for fornication?  Will the Loony Left become so progressive it starts campaigning for equal marriage for clones?  There is no telling now the parties will drift for the long term.  More importantly than that though is how the candidates in the future will portray themselves or how favorable for (insert x party here) will be in a certain year.  I mean there is a reason why centrist Republican Alf Landon did worse than liberal hero Walter Mondale did.  We could go on our current course of disillusionment->compromise->disillusionment->compromise or do we finally find some people who we can rally behind who we feel truly stand for our beliefs?  Does a new politician come by who causes a huge realignment in American politics?  If it's the latter two, I would say that yes it is possible for another 500+ electoral landslide.

I mean this kind of situation (polarization makes landslides very difficult) isn't alien to American history.  Frankly I could see a party candidate winning over 500 electoral votes within the next twenty years if one party becomes to radical and the other becomes the "party of the centre".
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,173
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2011, 10:04:22 am »

It’s probably a lot more likely than any of us think.

Not so much here at Atlas Forum but in numerous venues … during Election 2008, there were people who took the George W. Bush 2000 and 2004 maps and thought presidential-White House-party-pickup Barack Obama would win modestly. As if less than five states were feasibly able to flip from 2004 R to 2008 D. They were not betting on, weeks let alone months in advance, the 2-to-1 spread in the Electoral College. I knew that Obama would be, at least, in the upper-300s — rendering John McCain not only unable to hold the White House for the Republicans at the minimum 270 … but that McCain wouldn’t get to 200.

I think some states don’t get much attention because the time and money involved make today’s campaigning different in nature. For example: Montana is underrated. In the last 25 elections (1912–2008, the same year bellwether New Mexico first voted; ditto McCain’s home state Arizona), Mont. carried for all election winners but four: 1960, 1976, 1996, and 2008. (Except ’76, Mont. was under 3 points for each national losing candidate.) I pointed out, in another thread, that Mont. and Colo., voted the same from the first post-WWII election of 1948 and until 2004. I presented the spread of the two states’ margins. Lately they’ve been past 10 points. In 2004, they were more dramatic: 15.83%. But the state hasn’t been given much attention; foolishly underestimated by some Democrats. There’s certain nuances with some rather likeminded states. And of the 16 elections of 1948–2008, Colo. and Mont. averaged a spread of just 5.65%. 

My assertion is that the measly 3 electoral votes from Mont. were worthy of more visits from the ’08 Obama camp; it was one of three of the McCain-held states in which Obama won the female vote. Given next year’s U.S. Senate race (Rs win over control if they flip the White House!), the president should campaign in Mont. to the flip the 2.38% (R hold) for carriage and assist Sen. Jon Tester with winning a second term.

With what I’ve mentioned about Mont. … who the hell can say that the same kind of pursuit might be wasted on Dark Red states like Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming? Not making bets on their potential to at least purple up; but, with one of those three, Idaho — which voted for all winners five straight decades (1910s through the 1950s) — has voted the same as Mont. from the latter’s second presidential election, in 1896, with just the exception of 1992.

Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,809
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2011, 05:14:20 pm »
« Edited: March 28, 2011, 05:26:47 pm by Draka Revivalist »

It’s probably a lot more likely than any of us think.

Not so much here at Atlas Forum but in numerous venues … during Election 2008, there were people who took the George W. Bush 2000 and 2004 maps and thought presidential-White House-party-pickup Barack Obama would win modestly. As if less than five states were feasibly able to flip from 2004 R to 2008 D. They were not betting on, weeks let alone months in advance, the 2-to-1 spread in the Electoral College. I knew that Obama would be, at least, in the upper-300s — rendering John McCain not only unable to hold the White House for the Republicans at the minimum 270 … but that McCain wouldn’t get to 200.

I think some states don’t get much attention because the time and money involved make today’s campaigning different in nature. For example: Montana is underrated. In the last 25 elections (1912–2008, the same year bellwether New Mexico first voted; ditto McCain’s home state Arizona), Mont. carried for all election winners but four: 1960, 1976, 1996, and 2008. (Except ’76, Mont. was under 3 points for each national losing candidate.) I pointed out, in another thread, that Mont. and Colo., voted the same from the first post-WWII election of 1948 and until 2004. I presented the spread of the two states’ margins. Lately they’ve been past 10 points. In 2004, they were more dramatic: 15.83%. But the state hasn’t been given much attention; foolishly underestimated by some Democrats. There’s certain nuances with some rather likeminded states. And of the 16 elections of 1948–2008, Colo. and Mont. averaged a spread of just 5.65%.  

My assertion is that the measly 3 electoral votes from Mont. were worthy of more visits from the ’08 Obama camp; it was one of three of the McCain-held states in which Obama won the female vote. Given next year’s U.S. Senate race (Rs win over control if they flip the White House!), the president should campaign in Mont. to the flip the 2.38% (R hold) for carriage and assist Sen. Jon Tester with winning a second term.

With what I’ve mentioned about Mont. … who the hell can say that the same kind of pursuit might be wasted on Dark Red states like Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming? Not making bets on their potential to at least purple up; but, with one of those three, Idaho — which voted for all winners five straight decades (1910s through the 1950s) — has voted the same as Mont. from the latter’s second presidential election, in 1896, with just the exception of 1992.

After reading this post I realized I had worded my post wrongly.
What I meant was "it's a lot more likely" there could be a 500 electoral vote landslide in the future than any of us think.
520+, maybe.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines