Do you think we're too polarized to have a true 'landslide' election?

[Ferguson97]

Do you think we're too polarized to have a true 'landslide' election?

[Calthrina950]

Yes, and I think it will be a long time-if ever-before we have another one.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Trump only losing by four points in the popular vote (and it was even closer in the Electoral College) despite COVID, BLM riots, and multiple scandals and gaffes pretty much answers the question.

[Dr. MB]

Trump only losing by four points in the popular vote (and it was even closer in the Electoral College) despite COVID, BLM riots, and multiple scandals and gaffes pretty much answers the question.

You're forgetting that those things probably helped him as much as they hurt him.

[ultraviolet]

Biden winning by four points in the popular vote despite COVID, BLM riots, and multiple scandals and gaffes pretty much answers the question.

[Del Tachi]

An aspect of this that isn't mentioned enough is that the American electorates of the 20th century were much less diverse than today's.  It seems to me that it'd be easier to win a big majority if you only had to worry about messaging to White men, for the most part.   

[mileslunn]

Absolutely.  In past everyone watched same media and much more overlap while today most go to echo chambers.  Also before modern social media, candidates could say one thing in one part of the country and another in another part.  While parties were more grassroots that tailored policies to local needs, not nationalized like today. 

Realistically I think its pretty much impossible for either party to get over 400 electoral votes.  Even since 2008, US has become far more polarized as Obama won many rural counties which Democrats are hopeless in today and likewise he won Indiana while almost won Montana and no way either state is going Democrat in foreseeable future.  Now if Democrats flip Texas in future, that could in theory allow them to get over 400 electoral votes, but that assumes they can win back Ohio and Florida and former doesn't seem likely while latter possible but very difficult.

[Karenthecomputer]

Yes. I honestly can’t even see something like 2008 happening again for a long time.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It could potentially happen in the event of serious abstention or a serious third party challenge.

[Schiff for Senate]

No. It depends on what you characterize a landslide. In terms of the electoral college, let's say a landslide is garnering 340 electoral votes or more (in other words, one party gets at most 198 electoral votes). That seems highly unlikely, since most states are completely locked for one party at this point, and even a poor candidate would likely take 200 electoral votes or more as a Democrat or Republican. In my opinion, the blue states below are almost locked for the Democrats; the red states almost locked for the GOP; and the residue winnable by either party in a good year for them (the GOP does have just 125 electoral votes totally safe for them, but TX is actually a lean R state and I don't think the Democrats can carry both Iowa, a state filled with working-class white voters, and Arizona, packed with educated suburbanites, simultaneously anymore; the GOP will most likely carry at least one of those states in any given presidential race):

[Agonized-Statism]

With the grip Trump has on people, it'll take a few elections for that to be possible again.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Absolutely. Modern-day landslides are basically >300 EVs. Our system is really polarized that the electoral college now comes down to a handful of swing states.

But if you take a look back to the 1980s and 1990s, many more states were able to be swayed. I guess it's a product of shifting demographics and ideologies. For example, the Tea Party movement was not too big until the 2010s and Republicans started shifting to the right socially. This lost them a lot of states in which they were formerly competitive like in the NE and West.

Democrats maintained their dominance in urban centers and also regained the upper hand in the suburbs starting in 2008 after Obama's election. So yes, unless there is a realigning election, we won't be seeing any more true landslides (>350 evs) regularly any time soon.

[progressive85]

The last true landslide was 1984 and that was a whole different age completely in so many ways.

I doubt there will be a landslide like that until something really fundamentally shakes the entire core of the country out of where it's been since.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

2020 would have been a Dem landslide with a stronger Dem ticket. So no.

[Chips]

I'd consider a landslide 350 or over. It's theoretically possible for the GOP to get 357 and the Dems to get 413 but both are heavily unlikely outcomes but it's more likely for the Dems.

[Torie]

What percent of the vote would Trump get if there were a snap election next month? Would it be that much less than the 48% he got last November?

[The Mikado]

No. It depends on what you characterize a landslide. In terms of the electoral college, let's say a landslide is garnering 340 electoral votes or more (in other words, one party gets at most 198 electoral votes).

The two nearest Trump-won states were NC (Trump won by 1.3) and FL (Trump won by 3.3). Flip just those two and Biden's at a solid 350. Hardly impossible to meet your 340 bar.

[Schiff for Senate]

No. It depends on what you characterize a landslide. In terms of the electoral college, let's say a landslide is garnering 340 electoral votes or more (in other words, one party gets at most 198 electoral votes).

The two nearest Trump-won states were NC (Trump won by 1.3) and FL (Trump won by 3.3). Flip just those two and Biden's at a solid 350. Hardly impossible to meet your 340 bar.

True, but I think it's going to be hard for Democrats to create a coalition that will give them all their 2020 voters and states and at the same time win FL and NC. GA and AZ could flip just as easily, if not even easier, than NC and FL - particularly if Trump doesn't become the Republican nominee...

NC could go blue, yes, and so could FL, but I think it's more likely that AZ, GA or WI flip, depending on who the nominee is - WI is actually probably leaning Democratic, as of right now, in 2024, but if Trump or Trump Jr aren't the GOP nominee in 2024, it's possible there's a suburban boomerang in AZ and GA, with some of the Romney/Biden voters returning to the GOP if they don't nominate Trump. Or they could just stay home or support another candidate. Yes, some Romney/Biden voters are gone for good from the GOP, but some may not be 'pro-Biden' or liberal, just 'anti-Trump.' The reason AZ voted blue was because Maricopa County went blue (for the first time since 1948), and the reason that county went blue was because of Biden's gains in suburban AZ. The reason GA went blue was because of massive turnout and increasing liberalism in the Atlanta metropolitan area. If Trump isn't the nominee, the massive turnout and/or suprisingly large support for Biden may backtrack slightly - propelling AZ and GA back into the GOP column, if by small margins. GA went blue by 0.24%, and AZ by 0.4%. They aren't blue states because of that. They are still in play, and if Trump isn't the 2024 GOP nominee, could very plausibly go red. Of course, they could still go blue - but I wouldn't call it guaranteed or even especially likely. And winning NC and FL, particularly FL, may be an uphill fight for Biden. I could  see NC flipping blue, but perhaps not FL. We should wait till the 2022 elections are completed to see if the 2020 results in Miami-Dade were just a one-time thing or will become part of a larger trend: if it is the former, FL may be competitive, and if the latter, then I think FL is probably lean R.

And on the other side, I have to say, I think that if GA and AZ are to be swing states (and possibly NC and TX, too) - which they are at this point, then it doesn't matter if FL, IA, OH, and even WI go red, because it will be an uphill battle for the Republicans to even win the presidency. And if they do somehow win, it will be narrowly. Forget 340, they'll be lucky to cross 290 or perhaps even 280.

[sting in the rafters]

Ideological polarization augmented the bases and raised the floors for both parties. Most public surveys and national exit polls from the past several election cycles put the national breakdown at roughly a quarter self-described liberal, 3/8ths self described moderate, and 3/8ths self-described conservative. Now, none of these polls should be treated as hard-and-fast, with a large enough sample size the breakdown tends to sway as a function of turnout.

Using 2000 as a cutoff point, the D-floor with each group in the NPV is roughly 4/5ths of the two-party liberal vote, (2004,2016) 5/9ths of the two-party moderate vote (2002,2004), and 1/7th of the two-party conservative vote. Likewise, the R-floors are 1/10th of the two-party liberal vote (2008, 2010, 2012, 2020), 1/3rd of the two-party moderate vote (2020), and 7/9ths of the conservative vote (2006/2008)


Some quick math gives us a D-floor of ~46% and an R-floor of ~44%. Those roughly correspond with the most lopsided results we've seen (Ds garnering only 46% of the two-way NPV in the 2010 midterms, Rs only 44% in 06) when again factoring for turnout. That % of the vote is what's already baked in for both parties.



The caveat is will ideological polarization hold? According to Gallup's most recent annual survey, both parties have accelerated their trends of ideological uniformity. . It is hard to envision a scenario in the near future where that reverses.



Tl;dr:The Big Sort amplified both parties's bases. The NPV is locked in from ~D+11-~R+7 depending on base turnout.