Skip to comments.Might We See a Landslide?
Posted on 06/21/2012 10:17:20 AM PDT by kingattax
We have grown unaccustomed to presidential landslides. The three most lopsided presidential races since 1988 fell short of the conventional definition of a landslide, which would be a ten-point difference in the popular vote between the winner of the election and the next-closest candidate. Obama in 2008 beat McCain by seven points and carried 28 states.
Clinton in 1996 beat Dole by eight points (although Clinton did not even get a majority of the popular vote) and carried 31 states. George H. Bush had a seven-point advantage over Dukakis in 1988 and carried 40 states. A quick perusal of the electoral maps in each race shows a closely divided nation and no real mandate for the victorious candidate.
But that landslide drought could end this November. Economic conditions produce landslides -- prosperity propelled Reagan and Eisenhower, for example, to huge re-election wins in 1984 and 1956. Economic distress affects voters even more.
Only once has a president persuaded Americans to re-elect him in grim economic times: FDR in his 1936 landslide re-election.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Gallup today has ZEro at 43%. Sorry, Mitt-haters, but that’s landslide territory for Romney. NO president wins with that level of support: Clinton managed once, in a three-way race with a third-party candidate taking 17%. There’s no Ross Perot to save ZEro this time around.
I hope the elderly remember that FOR THE FIRST TIME...and 2 years in a row, they did not get a COLA.
I hope the youth realize that Obama shut up the job market with his industry killing moves AND HIS DAMN OBAMACARE.
Heaven help us if he has 4 more years.
I was taught in grade school in the 60’s that when there is a seriously disappointing wheat crop in the USSR, they get a new leader.
Same here. People kept worrying about Obama in the polls last year. I was not interested because the only remotely meaningful polls are the polls this year, and even then only very close to the election, and by then we will be in a REAL sh**storm. Obama will be blathering and drooling on national TV. Frankly, if you look at reviews of his last couple of speeches, even by liberals, it appears he is in the blathering stage.
This will be a VERY interesting year. Hell, it already is a record breaker. We may even get another September 1st, 1939 event if things keep going the way they are.
uh..RCP says “NO!”
Romney needs 100 more electoral votes from these “toss up states”:
New Hampshire (4)
North Carolina (15)
So, we can only lose NV & NH and still win....
Doesn’t look like “landslide” potential to me!
Pa will be in play.
I have some ocean front property in Utah that might interest you. :)
“Theres no Ross Perot to save ZEro this time around.”
But I gotta wonder how many Dems are wondering "if only we'd elected Hillary..."
Gallup today has ZEro at 43%. Sorry, Mitt-haters, but thats landslide territory for Romney.
I really wish FREEPERS had a better grasp on the American election system. It is sad that a FREEPER like yourself would be so ignorant to the fact that popular vote does not elect a President and that the electoral college does. I guess it is the decrease in education that has resulted in even FREEPERS being ignorant.
RCP says PA is Obama +8
Even with LV’s it’s +6
That LV tally was 30 days ago, so perhaps an update will help.
That's 15% more votes than McCain got ~ which is really, really, really, really tough to overlook.
The definition you want to apply to "landslide" would require Obama to get 72 million votes and McCain to have just 58 million votes. That would be a difference of just shy of 14 million votes ~ or insurmountable ~ and in fact, 40% more than Obama got.
I'm not as picky, and based on the best political theory, any landslide in an American election starts when one candidate gets as much as 53%. That's because the transition of factions from one political affiliation to the other is much faster these days.
Now this presents a problem for pollsters that may be insurmountable ~ particularly if both premier candidates are actually undergoing a relaxation of popularity ~ Romney inside Republican circles and Obama inside Democrat circles.
Let me use Obama's recent ploy with the illegal alien chillun' as an example. He took them hostage ~ if illegals want their children born abroad to be made legal their legal relatives have to vote for Obama. The polls didn't budge with Hispanics. Or, alternatively, the legal Hispanics with illegal relatives are wildly enthusiastic about the idea but the legal Hispanics witout illegal relatives thinks he's crude beyond belief ~ imagine, taking children hostage in modern America? Who'd do that eh!
So, a wash ~ maybe.
But does that do anything to that 10 million voter advantage Obama had? It may not. Most of these polls imagine that if people drop the Democrat they'll vote for the Republican, but what if all that happens is they just don't vote for the Democrat? Then a loss on one side doesn't translate to a gain on the other side ~ except in the polls. The pollsters tend to throw outliers out ~ people who don't intend to vote for President just don't count ~ but if all you do is replace them with somebody who says he's going to vote for President you end up raising the Republican's percentage while dropping the Democrat's percentage.
That's not happening here. The difference is 15% and it consists of people who'd rather not vote at all than vote for a Republican (whereas last time they voted for Obama). Add to that the number who'd rather not vote for President than vote for a Leftwinger and you have a doggone good possibility that Obama can win even while losing upwards of 10 million votes from the last election.
We would see a political landslide, if a small government conservative was the final choice for ‘12 POTUS! Two leftists candidates, as the final, major candidate picks for ‘12 POTUS=the left has, already, won the race for ‘12 POTUS!
Latest Bloomberg poll (if Mitt haters want to believe it)shows the anointed one with a 13-point bulge over Romney.
The Libertarian Party is trying to get their candidate on ballots.
I am sure that Philadelphia will churn out enough votes for Obama, even if they have to hit 300% of the eligible voters this time.
Demographic changes are making voters less responsive to policy failure.
In the past, the abject failure of performance of a president like Jimmy Carter could result in the voting public making an evaluation of his policies and rejecting him in a landslide.
In our day, the percentage of the voting public that evaluates presidents (and politicians generally) on the basis of policy success has declined.
Massive immigration, the emergence of unmarried women with children as the dominant family form in major population groups and the indoctrination by government schools and popular culture have created voting blocs that are impervious to conventional policy failure.
Consider that two giant states, California and New York, are beyond reach no matter how badly Obama does in office. His success or failure in conventional terms such as in how government policy affects the economy and how he has conducted foreign policy are for the most part irrelevant to the voting base that will hand him victory in these states.
With a bow to Nathan Hale, I only regret that I have but one vote to give for my country.
The RCP “average” is useless...
If you isolate the LV (Likely Voters) polls, you can learn a lot!
Thus, I stand by my assessment!
If you have “better” data, please share.
There is no enthusiasm for Romney. That would change if Mitt started going after Obama like he went after Santorum, Gingrich, etc. He's shown no sign of that.
Don’t hate him; don’t believe it; don’t expect him to win.
Never forget about the (R)s inevitable wasy of screwing up a soup sandwich.
That's an understatement.Obama voters don't care what his polices are; that is, if they are even aware of them beyond what's in it for them.
I really don't think doctrinaire leftists or professional criminals think that way ~ they assume they can steal back any losses they personally might incur.
Obama still has his 69 million votes as far as those polls go.
Bingo! Not a landslide, since the number of bloodsuckers has grown substantially since those elections, and will do whatever they can to continue their lifestyles.
I told people in Feb that Wisc and Mich would be in play. Watch. Coal companies stocks are down 60-70% in the last 12 months. Mines are closing. All those union guys that voted for him even though he said he would destroy their industry will take that quote a little more seriously. Coal miner. His wife. Kids. Its far more more than 1-1 voting. His base isn’t as fired up this time around either.
40+% will vote for Obama...he's their sugar daddy, and they're voting their self interest. The Mittster has to give the average voter a real reason to vote for him, and it can't simply be because he's not Obama.
I'm still holding out hope that it will turn out like 1980, i.e. the turn of sentiment in the weekend before the election.
That's when the average voter asks themselves, "does the incumbent deserve another four years?"
Recently some blacks have begun saying "Obama has done nothing for us", which is true. They're mostly right back where they were in the 1950s. A half billion bucks given to Vann Jones does nothing to stir the broad masses!
A payoff to the USPS that keeps rural (almost totally white operated) post offices in businesses might PO urban blacks where the USPS continues to be a MAJOR employer of higher skilled black employees. Obama sure blew that one ~ USPS is closing fewer places, but guess what ~ they have high percentages of black workers.
That's a theme for some Republican campaign ads, but does that get to the youth?
A lesson USPS is important to black voters. It's only 1/5 as important to white voters. We should have been on top of that one.
You may have noticed that Mitt hasn't made very many speeches that deal with specific polices as they might relate to various interest groups. Did you suspect that maybe he actually has nothing to say?
Get with the picture or this election will be just a big mystery to you as it plays out.
It's still too soon to tell where the polls are going to break. Many states are within the margin of error.
What's sad is that the Senate seems to be slipping from GOP control, according to the Rasmussen polls. The GOP better get on top of this fast, so they don't come out of the summer behind the curve.
What’s a 20 point difference? A lahar?
Day by day Obama looks more and more like Hoover or Carter, only without the inherent decency of those two men.
Actually, my comment was quite brilliant. The fact is that an electoral landslide is what DOES happen when you have this kind of approval number. Look at the historical numbers when the loser got 43% of the vote.
I take it you aren't a Democrat...
Some of the bloodsuckers are wising up that there is a maximum sustainable rate of bloodsucking before the host dies and the bloodsuckers starve.
His last few pressers he seemed to me to be on something.
Obozo losing it???
No, that’s simply not true. I encounter plenty of people who voted for Obama and who now will vote for Romney. In addition, in 2008 you had high turnout among blacks and youth. I can say with great confidence as a college teacher that there will be a huge drop off in the second group, and we have good evidence that the black vote will revert to 2004 levels. Finally, despite the concerns about Romney, I don’t think GOPers will stay home or switch as they did in 2008. Example: in 2008, we examined a precinct in suburban Dayton that should have been close to 100% GOP-—about 1/6 voted for Obama. One GOP officeholder learned that 4 of 5 of her kids voted for Zero. That stuff will not happen in 2012. And, yes, that stuff adds up to a crapload of votes.
Obama was at 43% in the three days surrounding Election Day in 2010.
I would consider the results of that election to be a landslide for the GOP.
Not even DU'ers are buying that poll.
—Obozo losing it???—
I think he may be. As you probably already know I’ve gone on record that I do not believe he will finish his term, probably due to personal meltdown, maybe in public.
Not so fast there Seabiscuit.
We still have to deal with Ron Paulbots and Donald Trump's ego.
Landslides only happen when a candidate generates cross-over support.
I think a LOT of disillusioned Democrats will vote for Romney. And why shouldn’t they?
In a normal election, conservatives migh not turn out with enthusiasm for Mitt Romney, but this is not a normal election. This is about throwing the most offensive president ever out of office. So I think conservatives will ultimately show up.
So, yes, I do believe we are in landslide territory. Not Reagan/Carter landslide territory, but probably 1988 Bush/Dukakis territory.
43% approval when 45% of the country is taking food stamps cannot possibly be a good sign for Obama
Second, of Obama's 9 million vote advantage, how many were Republicans or R-leaning Indies who voted D? Well, a heckuva lot. I gave you the example of the precinct we studied in a totally R neighborhood that had turned out close to 100% for Bush twice, but was only at about 80%. We knew after that one "flush" that Obama had won OH, and certainly the election.
But those are easy switches. Do you think that precinct won't be 100% Romney this time around? Indeed, in many places the more moderate Romney may turn out more people than a conservative would---not all, of course, and it may be a wash. But I personally know a family, two of whom voted for ZERO (white, middle class) and neither of whom is voting for him this time around.
So, if Romney just gains 4.5m GOP/Indie voters who are coming home, he wins. But if he also gets 1-2% of disaffected Dems, that can translate on a state level to, yes, a blowout if you go state by state.
That said, we know in 2002 and 2004 that the polls were off, and it favored us (i.e., undercounted Republicans). In 2006 and 2008, the polls were right on. So I do not want to get into the "poll dismissal" mode, but the right direction/wrong direction question, now coupled with this, makes it seem like it will take an act of the devil to get ZERO re-elected.
After the elections in West Virginia, it is hard to credit the union voters with much of a sense of self-preservation.