'it looks like a landslide, folks...'

[Brittain33]

I am kind of sick of relatively minor deviations from 2000 being considered a "landslide."

Where "minor deviation" = nearly 100 more electoral votes for the winner than in 2000.

[Politico]

I am kind of sick of relatively minor deviations from 2000 being considered a "landslide."

Where "minor deviation" = nearly 100 more electoral votes for the winner than in 2000.

Come on...take away a handful of states and we're talking about a loss. That's not a landslide.

[Brittain33]

I am kind of sick of relatively minor deviations from 2000 being considered a "landslide."

Where "minor deviation" = nearly 100 more electoral votes for the winner than in 2000.

Come on...take away a handful of states and we're talking about a loss. That's not a landslide.

If the states are CA, NY, and FL, sure.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I am kind of sick of relatively minor deviations from 2000 being considered a "landslide."

Where "minor deviation" = nearly 100 more electoral votes for the winner than in 2000.

The Electoral College magnifies the effect of small changes.

A 3% swing from Gore to Bush yields:

Bush: 366
Gore: 172

A 3% swing from Bush to Gore yields:

Gore: 358
Bush: 180

Neither of the above should be called landslides and most of the maps posted in this this thread aren't landslides either.

[Politico]

I am kind of sick of relatively minor deviations from 2000 being considered a "landslide."

Where "minor deviation" = nearly 100 more electoral votes for the winner than in 2000.

Come on...take away a handful of states and we're talking about a loss. That's not a landslide.

If the states are CA, NY, and FL, sure.

Take away OH, PA, VA, NC, and FL from Obama and he loses 2008. That's not a landslide.

[AmericanNation]

Romney: 366
Dem X :  172

...That's Romney's 2016 reelection map. 

[mondale84]

Romney: 366
Dem X :  172

...That's Romney's 2016 reelection map. 

LOL

You're the saddest troll on here...

[pbrower2a]

One oddity: in elections since 1900, winning Presidential nominees have won with at least 65.3% of the electoral vote (McKinley, 1900) or no more than 57.1% of the electoral vote (Truman, 1948) Random scatter would suggest an average somewhere around 61% of the electoral vote, but we just don't see such a result.  This is so despite laws that established that certain people could vote (women, Southern blacks, and persons aged 18 to 21), the addition of five new states and allowing people in DC to vote, the general increase in formal education, the increase of population in the Far West far beyond that in other States, immigration and naturalization of ethnic groups different from those characteristic of America in the 1890s, the rural-to-urban-to-suburban domination of the US population, and technological change (in transportation, media, and data storage or dissemination).

Toward the end of the 2008 campaign season most predicted President Obama to win between 307 and 351 electoral votes in 2008 -- and all who did so were wrong. The zone between 307 and 351 electoral votes looks like a 'prohibited result'.

Strategy forces the candidates to choose winning strategies if such are available. If the election looks close, then one sees activity concentrated in relatively few states. 2000 and 2004 are primary examples: Al Gore bet everything on Florida in 2000; Kerry bet everything in Ohio; both lost. Alternatives closed down for both. Someone behind will try to gain votes where they can help him most and not take high-risk chances that expose more of his leads to make losses possible. Gore was not going to campaign heavily in Missouri, Ohio, or Virginia and risk his chances in Florida and make such states as Michigan or Wisconsin possible wins for Dubya.

If the eventual loser sees himself losing 370-158 he probably has no idea of how to win. But 330-228? Then one can only take wild risks most likely to result in a bigger loss but also some chance of winning by getting closer and hoping for miracles to put one on top. On the other side, the one ahead 330-228 is going to try to consolidate winning states while drawing down resources (campaign appearances and ad buys) in those states that don't make a difference.  Trading chances of an overwhelming win for a smaller but more solid win is a wise  strategy for someone with a decisive lead.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Romney: 366
Dem X :  172

...That's Romney's 2016 reelection map. 

Odd.  You'd think the Mittbot would at least update his software to use the current EVs rather than the ones from two censuses ago.  But discounting the numbers, while it is not a possible Romney reelection map, it could be a possible 2016 Ryan election map.  There's a very good chance whoever has the White House in the next four years will suffer for it, leading to a party change at the end.  Europe is not going to go in the tank in time to affect the current election, but has a good chance of doing so in 2013.

[ViaActiva]

We're still early on in the GE, Romney has made major mistakes in the past week or so but there's still time for the situation to change (Obama scandal, economy worsens, foreign policy disaster). Personally I think that Obama will win fairly comfortably, but a landslide is unlikely.

[mondale84]

Romney: 366
Dem X :  172

...That's Romney's 2016 reelection map. 

Odd.  You'd think the Mittbot would at least update his software to use the current EVs rather than the ones from two censuses ago.  But discounting the numbers, while it is not a possible Romney reelection map, it could be a possible 2016 Ryan election map.  There's a very good chance whoever has the White House in the next four years will suffer for it, leading to a party change at the end.  Europe is not going to go in the tank in time to affect the current election, but has a good chance of doing so in 2013.

That map is impossible, unless the Democrats nominate a homeless person who lives under the George Washington Bridge. And even then he would win Washington, Oregon, Minnesota and New Mexico.