Landslides
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 20, 2024, 11:55:45 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Landslides
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Landslides  (Read 11440 times)
Mr.Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 91,540
Jamaica


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2021, 11:44:48 PM »

D's will never win 413 OH is the wave insurence state not TX and it always have 1992/1996/2008/2012
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,255
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 23, 2021, 11:32:43 AM »

What is the threshold of EVs or percentage of the PV to be considered a landslide?

The following:

• Win U.S. Popular Vote by no less than +10 percentage points
• Carry no less than 40 (which are 80 percent) of the nation’s states
• Prevail with an electoral-vote score which is no less than 400
Logged
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,631
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2021, 01:07:33 AM »

What is the threshold of EVs or percentage of the PV to be considered a landslide?

The following:

• Win U.S. Popular Vote by no less than +10 percentage points
• Carry no less than 40 (which are 80 percent) of the nation’s states
• Prevail with an electoral-vote score which is no less than 400

You are formulating parameters no candidate can realistically meet anymore. I could almost see Democrats (in a good year a few decades from now) getting criterion 1 and 3, but #2 is downright impossible for any candidate now, since there are definitely more than 10 states that are rock-ribbed Republican (look at ND; SD; OK; WY; ID; UT; NE; WV; KY; AL and TN for starters) and 10 similarly Democratic states that will never go red (MA; CA; HI; MD; NY; VT; OR; WA; NJ; IL; CT; RI, are just a few).

What could be realistically attainable is these restrictions:

-Popular victory by over 6%
-Carry at least 30 states (for Democrats) or at least 35 states (for Republicans)
-Win at least 340 electoral votes
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,462
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2023, 06:39:07 PM »
« Edited: January 26, 2023, 06:42:46 PM by °°°°uu »

1980 was not a landslide because the popular vote margin was less than 10%.

In fact, Reagan did not win a majority in enough states to win the electoral college. He won by winning a plurality in some states and did receive a big majority of electoral votes, due to the fact that there was a strong third party candidate.

The definition of a landslide is when the winner get 10% more than the second place candidate.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,930
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2023, 07:31:21 AM »
« Edited: February 16, 2023, 06:19:41 PM by pbrower2a »

01 2000 50.4
02 1916 52.2
03 2004 53.2
04 1976 55.2
05 1968 55.9 mostly squeakers
06 1960 56.4
07 (tie) 2016 and 2020 56.5
09 1948 57.1
---------------
10 2012 61.7 hard to characterize
---------------
11 1900 65.3
12 1908 66.5
13 2008 67.8
14 1992 68.8 bare landslides
15 1996 70.4
16 1904 70.6
17 1924 71.9
---------------
18 1920 76.1
19 1988 79.2
20 1944 81.4
21 1912 81.9 landslides
22 1952 83.2
23 1928 83.6
24 1940 84.6
25 1956 86.1
---------------
26 1932 88.9
27 1964 90.3 big landslides
28 1980 90.9
---------------
29 1972 96.7
30 1984 97.6 gigantic landslides
31 1936 98.5


The elections of 1948 and 1960 were generally seen as squeakers at the time. OK, FDR and Ike had won elections with 80% or more of the electoral vote by 1960, so perhaps those seemed relatively close. Dewey may have had no chance, but Nixon thought that he did if a couple of states went his way as he hoped.

I have suggestions on why the 2012 election is in its own category. First, had Romney won Florida then that election would have been in the "squeaker" category.  Second, any Presidential nominee who sees the election as close is likely to 'play' specific states to get bare wins, which can often be done without abandoning efforts elsewhere. So if one sees one's opponent in the lead with 330 or so electoral votes one must take extreme chances to have a chance -- in which case one's efforts most likely result in losing by a bigger margin. Electoral collapses happen in that area. (Remember 1988?)  

I look at the tie for the #7 spot for closeness. In both cases three states would have made the difference. If Hillary Clinton had won Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, her three barest losses, she would have been elected. If Trump had won Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin, his three barest losses, then he would still be President.

... 2012 is the oddity, neither a squeaker not a landslide. It's in a zone that elections avoid even if it looks like a natural zone for the clustering of results. I have four categories of landslides. I can usually draw a line somewhere between categories. I'm not certain that my split between Ike in 1956 and FDR in 1932 is as significant as I suggest; I tried to keep Ike's two similar elections in one category.

-------------------------------------------------------

Over 120 years and 31 elections we have seen some big changes. We have five more states than we did in 1900. America is much more populous and more urban and far less rural. The Hispanic populations have greatly increased. One no longer needs be a white, property-owning male to vote. The effective single-Party elections in some states due to the absence of significant numbers of black voters despite large numbers of black people are no more (and may such remain so!) Technology in the delivery of the news and in the technology of electioneering have changed. Politicians travel by air and not by train or horse. Educational standards are much higher, and we have computers to disgorge information that can cause politicians to change their approaches on a tiny pivot. News media can give us economic data or expose scandals fast. We have seen the partisan orientation of many states flip decisively one way or another over a few years. We have seen great demographic change as states that had few electoral votes in 1900 (Washington 4, California 9, Florida 4, and Texas 15) are electorally large -- and so is Arizona, which did not vote in 1900. Can you believe that Iowa and Kentucky both used to have 13 electoral votes, that Nebraska had 8, Missouri had 17, or that Pennsylvania had 32?  Partisan orientation of some states has made a 180-degree turn.

What is unusual now is that we have extreme polarization between the states. Obama won 365 electoral votes in 2008 despite losing states by margins like those by which McGovern lost while winning slightly more states with margins characteristic of Reagan.   In 1976 in a close election Carter lost only six states by margins of 15% or more and those were electorally small, the biggest of them being Arizona (which then had only six electoral votes). He won only four states with similar margins. 25 states were decided by 6% or less. In 2020. fully thirty states were decided by 15% or more and only nine were decided by 6% or less. It's easy to see how badly many Trump supporters could see themselves as having been 'cheated'.  They see very isolated people as the only ones in their community who could vote against Trump.

Such polarization may prevent landslides such as those of FDR, Ike in the '50's, or Reagan in the '80's. High housing and vehicle costs may be making people much less mobile than they used to be. Educational results are very different in some states. We have had no event that can shake the fundamental assumptions that many of us hold. The last big cultural change was the rise of the Religious Right back in the 1970's, and only now is its importance beginning to fade. Farm states in the High Plains are hemorrhaging small farmers who were close to the political center as the giant farmers who remain become as reactionary as Junkers of Imperial Germany... while depending on non-citizen farm laborers to do the rural toil. If those non-citizen farm laborers' kids start to vote, then states like the Dakotas can swing very hard and very fast. If housing costs should stagnate (exponential growth in prices always crashes) then maybe people will move around more than they have been doing recently.

Then there remains the potential for the catastrophic failure of one Party or another... wars that go badly, domestic terrorism or criminality on a now unimaginable scale for America, or an economic meltdown as horrid as the one that started in 1929. Don't let me get started discussing climate change. What do we do when the first state to ratify the Constitution goes fully underwater?  
 



  
  
Logged
Mr.Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 91,540
Jamaica


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2023, 08:30:10 AM »

OH, NC and SC are on the verge of flipping back D
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,930
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2023, 06:49:14 PM »

OH, NC and SC are on the verge of flipping back D

NC yes.. the other two... not likely barring an R split.

OK, let's look at the "big" and "gigantic" landslides. Everything fell apart for Herbert Hoover in 1932 because he bungled the response to an economic meltdown that was sure to happen. Speculative booms always implode. Supposedly this is always a possibility because any economic good times can come to an abrupt end. In 1964 and 1972 the losing Party nominated someone that the winning Party found easy to cast as a dangerous extremist. In 1980 much went wrong for Jimmy Carter, including the rise of the Religious Right which gutted the Southern base of Carter's 1976 victory. Inflation was becoming less severe, and it's hard to see how Carter could have gotten different results in Iran other than a successful rescue mission.   1936 and 1984? The losing nominee had yet to get the message.

One of the supreme ironies is that Goldwater and McGovern supporters were happier with their nominees than any other supporters of any other nominee.  Strong support from the Base is just not enough. As FDR's wins show one wins big with lukewarm support from a huge part of the electorate.

The vast majority of Republicans are clueless about the failure of Trump as President. By any objective result not an electoral statistic Trump was a catastrophe as President. The support that he had in 2016 and 2020 is intact -- if still living. They will mostly remain clueless about Trump. I can at most see slow erosion of Trump support.   

Trump's political base has shown no sign of disintegrating. Democrats may see Trump as a dangerous extremist, but Trump supporters still think him the greatest thing ever in American politics -- much like Goldwater supporters in 1964 or McGovern supporters in 1972 with their then-heroes of politics.   
Logged
Mr.Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 91,540
Jamaica


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2023, 11:47:57 PM »
« Edited: February 17, 2023, 12:17:30 AM by Mr.Barkari Sellers »

I disagree D's strategy is to win OH, SC and NC and if D's are leading in KY, MS, MT and NC Gov and won KS 22 they can pick off Josh Hawley with Kunce Kander is very close to Kunce and Hillary lost in 2016 and it wasn't 60/40 Conventional wisdom after KS 22 outside of FL and TX is over

LA Gov all the RS are under 50% and it's a Runoff we haven't had a single poll outside R internals

It's called being BOLD
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,255
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2023, 09:38:38 PM »


… In 1964 and 1972 the losing Party nominated someone that the winning Party found easy to cast as a dangerous extremist.



Yes.

This is not why Lyndon Johnson won a full term in 1964 and Richard Nixon re-election in 1972.

Goldwater, with his ideas, was years ahead of time. And the conditions were a U.S. president having succeeded an assassinated predecessor. It was one year’s time. A realigning period for the presidency for the Democrats. The nation was not about to go through another leader. In 1964, it did not matter who the Republicans nominated.

Nixon ushered in a realigning period, for the presidency, in 1968. Every U.S. president who presided over a realigning period won re-election. Given the two current, major U.S. political parties—Republican and Democratic—this was applicable to: 1860 and 1864 Abraham Lincoln; 1896 and 1900 William McKinley; 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944 Franklin Roosevelt. This was also true with 2008 and 2012 Barack Obama. And this was applicable to 1968 and 1972 Richard Nixon. For 1972 Nixon, his landslide was not because of the narrative on George McGovern. For Nixon, his job approval, according to Gallup’s historic timeline, reached 60 percent by Election Day. It was in the high-50s percentile range during much of the general-election period. It reached 60 percent by October. Nixon would have won at this level no matter who the Democrats nominated.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,930
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2024, 03:31:45 AM »

The aging of our most powerful politicians suggests the certainty of a realignment. When the President is in his eighties as are the Speaker emerita, the Senate majority Leader, and the next-to-last President of the United States who is the near-certain nominee of one of the two major parties are all past seventy-five we have a situation that cannot last.

Generational change is real, and America may be ready for politicians more like Barack Obama or JFK. Obama demonstrates that America will vote for anyone competent and moral irrespective of ethnicity or religion. Such may be inevitability by default.

Logged
Progressive Pessimist
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,783
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2024, 04:16:05 AM »

I think it depends on expectations.

Obama's 2012 win, in spite of only winning the popular vote by three, saw him win swing states-including some now safe R ones-by what can be considered unimaginable landslide margins today. He also won by well over 100 electoral votes.

So, also with hindsight, his comfortable 2008 win might now be the last biggest landslide we'll see for quite some time-at least a decade.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.234 seconds with 14 queries.