Will there ever be a Democratic landslide again?

[minionofmidas]

As a Warner/Bayh vs Tancredo/Huckabee (not Huckabee/Tancredo) map, though, it's pretty accurate.
Although I'd give the Dems Alaska.

Tancredo would not lose that badly, especially if the immigration debate heats up.  Against the right candidate he could win.

He's not up against the right kind of candidate (Who do you have in mind? Is it Dennis Kucinich, or Al Sharpton?) in this scenario.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama will landslide

Yay

[Person Man]

Depends on what you mean by "landslide".

[Matt Damon™]

11/2/2008 answered that question.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Depends on what you mean by "landslide".

In my opinion a landslide is when the winner recieves at least 400 electoral votes.

[Marokai Backbeat]

My definition of a landslide is someone who wins with more than double the amount of electoral votes of his opponent. In that definition, yes, we had an electoral landslide.

In terms of getting an obscene amount of states, something like 40+, it could happen, it's just not likely to happen because of such divisive campaigning from the right. Their tactic has been to mock and divide the country for well over 20 years now, and because of such it's possible it could take a generation before we see another huge landslide.

[Matt Damon™]

Obama managed to expand quite deep into traditional GOP zones. We're not talking the GOP deep dixie core but he managed to expand outside of the tossups/standard swing states.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

In my opinion a landslide is when the winner recieves at least 400 electoral votes.

Would you call this a landslide:

[Psychic Octopus]

11/2/2008 answered that question.

don't you mean 11/4/08?

[pbrower2a]

As of November 4, 2008 there is a gap over nearly a century between 303 electoral votes (JFK 1960 and Truman 1948) and 365 (Obama 365).  It's beyond doubt that Obama's victory is much closer to one of the two by Clinton than to any of those generally considered "squeaker" elections.  Maybe it's a "landslide light", but it is definitely no squeaker.

Good reason exists for nobody winning around 330 electoral votes since about 1908 (which was enough for Taft to get about the same percentage of electoral votes as Obama, and when there were neither Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii, nor the District of Columbia with voting rights): at such a point a nominee knows that he is losing and takes chances that either push him toward a bare victory (even if he falls short) or risks giving the opponent chances to win. Sometimes the gambles work; sometimes they don't. Someone behind 51-49 (roughly 274-268) in projected electoral votes is going to take fewer unconventional chances than someone behind 60-40 (roughly 330-238) will make quixotic efforts to try to win states that few think that he can win. By trying to flip such states as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and finally Pennsylvania and failing in each, John McCain probably threw away such chances as he had to hold onto Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida. But when he was losing Virginia, and a loss of Virginia without a challenge to what Democrats considered "safe" states, he was going to lose the election. McCain was in that position late in the electoral season and ran out of time.

A 330-238 split is unstable at any stage of a Presidential election. The election will get close or else it will diverge.


 

[Antonio the Sixth]

2012 could be an Obama landslide.

[??????????]

2012 could be an Obama landslide.

We'll be to broke for a presidential campaign by that point.