Does anyone expect a Democratic landslide?

[elperromagico]

I'm wondering if anyone can honestly conceive of a situation come November where the Democratic candidate wins in a landslide. I'm defining a landslide as a victory margin of ten percentage points or more.

I don't regard it as very likely. A Republican hasn't been unseated by a landslide margin since 1932 (if I remember correctly). I would personally imagine that, in a race where 3% of the vote goes to third-party candidates, our winning vote would range from 49%-52%, with Bush receiving anywhere from 45%-48%.

Contrary to what Pat Robertson claims God is telling him, I don't see Bush winning in a landslide either. I could see his vote going as high as perhaps 53% or as low as 49%, with the Democratic candidate receiving anywhere from 44%-48%.

Of course, anything is possible. We could be swept in, or we could be swamped. I'd like to know what others think.

[Walt Starr]

1. If Dean is the nominee, yes

Simnply because of the numbers of non-voters his candidacy stands to add to the rolls.

[elperromagico]

3. Well, we had a discussion about that last night here,

and there appears to be a major disagreement about how many new voters Dean could bring to the polls. Do you have a number figure?

[vi5]

6. Clinton brought out a ton of new, young voters....

Through his embrace of MTV and youth culture. And he didn't win by a landslide.

I fail to see any hard evidence of this groundswell of new voters Dean is bringing in beyond anecdotal "My friends uncles cousin has never voted before but is voting for Dean!!"

[adadem]

32. You must also

take into account those Democrats who won't vote or will vote third party because they will not vote for Dean on ideological grounds. There appears to be such a group within the mainstream Democratic Party.

One cannot dismiss the fact that Dean has become a divisive candidate to many and may not be able to meld the Democratic Party much less attract the swing voters and third party voters that will be needed for a landslide victory.

[forgethell]

34. A question that I have

is, that if Dean (or anybody for that matter) energizes new voters FOR himself, will he also energize new voters AGAINST himself? I see no reason to suppose that Republican-leaning non-voters are any more or less likely to be apathetic than Democratic-leaning ones.

So if we are getting energized because of the war, or unfair tax reductions, or whatever, why shouldwe assume that those that love these won't be energized to keep, or exend them?

I don't believe that I have ever seen this equstion addressed. Maybe it is a ridiculous proposittion, for whatever reason that I am missing? Your thoughts would be appreciated.

[CMT]

2. No

I think it will be another squeeker election. We have to pick up some states though to make sure that the electoral college is not up in the air this time: West Virginia, Ohio, Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire, Missouri, and Colorado should be heavily targeted.

[specimenfred1984]

4. Yes, In States That Aren't Confederate States!

A lot of people, me included, think today resembles the 1930's. Really it's a lot more like the 1830's.

[aquart]

19. 1870s.

[Imajika]

5. Your numbers look pretty sound

I think Bush has a better chance of winning in a landslide than we do. I don't think there is any chance for a Democratic landslide victory at all. Running against an incumbent president who generally has 50%+ approval ratings will make it very difficult for us just to win. Those predicting a Democratic landslide victory are off in fantasyland.

My suspicion is that it will be a very close election - with the eventual general election victor winning by only 1-2% at best.

Imajika

[ElementaryPenguin]

7. I do! A Clark/Dean Dean/Clark Clark/Dean Dean/Clark ticket will destroy

ChimpCo!! (provided we can stop Diebold) Landslide!! The fool war chimp will be routed - even in many of his idiot backward states!

[Padraig18]

8. 52-48 is probably the best we can hope for.

The vote in the Electoral College may be closer to a landslide, however, especially if we do well in OH, WV, AZ, NV, etc.

[elperromagico]

10. Somewhere over 300 electoral votes would be good.

We can't afford to play it close to the bone. Gore did in 2000, and I'm sure he regrets it now. I know I do.

[Padraig18]

13. I think 300 is doable.

I don't think anyone will be Gore-d this time; we know what's at stake and how KKKarl will play it.

[elperromagico]

15. Well, we can't pull out of Ohio,

we can't back out of Iowa and just assume it will go Dem (it was far too close for comfort last time), and we can't just assume that the Gore states will swing our way. Now, if we can pull solid majorities in the Gore states (none of this 1% margin of victory business), and pull off a few squeakers in other states where Bush is relatively weak such as Ohio--- we may be on our way.

It's an uphill battle, to be sure.

[Padraig18]

25. We've got a fight on our hands, no doubt.

On the plus side, we're not looking at an Alamo scenario, either, unless WE start believing that's true. Bush's support is a mile wide and an inch deep, and he's vulnerable as hell, IMO. :)

[elperromagico]

27. I suspect you're right.

His approval ratings and reelect numbers suggest that he has a lot of fairweather supporters who are waiting for someone better to come along. We have to present them with someone better. If we don't, they'll stay with Bush by default.

[adadem]

33. Add the state of

Michigan into that mix, too. Depending on who our candidate is I have a gut feeling Michigan may go red this time. Half of this state is very conservative.

[Cuban_Liberal]

37. Trade that for FL

FL (my natal state) is a lot more Democratic than people realize; just because Jebbie helped steal it last time does NOT mean it's a lost cause. We WON FL last time, folks---remember that.

[AndyTiedye]

9. We MUST Win by a Landslide, or Bush* Will "Win" Again

and I don't mean a 10% margin, they stole more than that
from Max Cleland. They can easily steal 10% of the vote.
We need to get Bush* down to 30% or less or we get Diebolded.

[elperromagico]

17. Well, then we're in trouble.

To get Bush down to 30%, we would need something in the neighborhood of 67%-70%, and that has never happened in the history of Presidential elections. The biggest landslide winners (FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan) were all incumbents. The only real exception is Warren Harding, and he only got 60%.

Stealing 10% of the Georgia vote is a lot easier than stealing 10% of the national vote. I wonder if Diebold could steal that many votes.

[Virgil]

11. Could happen

Mainly because he did not win the last election. The late military votes being illegally counted gave him victory even if the recount was stopped, using the official numbers. Plus he has gone on to unite the world against us, ruin the environment, start an illegal war of aggression whose lawsuits will take decades to settle, driven the country into massive deficit spending, and lied like H only to become the worst president in history.

My two closest friend voted for him last time and now hate him. Yes it could be a landslide. But one thing is for sure. I will vote for the democratic nominee if they Frankenstein the candidates together and leave out the brain.

[Sir_Shrek]

12. No

I'm expecting 51-48, or maybe even 49-47. I think it's going to be hella close, but I also think there's going to be a contingent that breaks rank and votes for a Nader-type.

[aquart]

14. Not with computerized voting, no.

[ShimokitaJer]

16. Call me hopelessly optimistic

But I think there is definite potential for a big win, not just of the presidency but of Congressional seats.

All the Bush scandals that have been ignored by the media will be brought to the forefront once we have a single face to head the Democratic party ticket. The GOP have shown what they do with a Republican president and a majority in Congress, so they no longer have Democratic obstructionists to blame. And what they've chosen to do is embrace porkbarrel spending and a Medicare bill bigger than anything the Dems have every proposed. Many traditionally Republican demographics are losing party loyalty: fiscal conservatives who don't respect Bush but may respond to a balanced budget Dem, non-fundamentalist Christians who don't buy Bush's hypocrisy about pre-emptive war, small government Repubs who aren't blind to Bush's expansion of government and ignorance of states' rights, etc. Not all of these will switch their votes to a Dem, but they may vote third party or not vote at all. Bush has soured the GOP pot.

The RW media is rotten to the core, and they are very loud, but it is a mistake to assume all Republican voters believe everything they say. We see the inane arguments of the pundits and Freepers and imagine that all Repubs think like they do. I think we'll find out in November that rumors of a big Bush win have been vastly exaggerated.

[msanger]

23. I agree about the congressional sea change.

I think if you start with a Dean or Clark led ticket, and with the energy those two campaigns are generating, AND then add in the energy that will come when local democrats realize they actually have a chance of winning this time around --- then we might see a huge ground-swell of support for Dems all across the board.

And if we get Dean/Clark together on a ticket -- it could be a tsunami

[elperromagico]

26. We definitely need a "two-headed ticket."

No, I didn't say "two-faced ticket," though I'm sure some smartass would call it that.

[aquart]

18. What was Bush's percentage of the total in 2000?

Subtract the votes he's lost: American Muslims, fiscal conservatives, military families, freepers enraged by his immigration initiatives...

Add the votes he's gained: Do you know ANYONE who did NOT vote for Bush in 2000, who IS voting for Bush in 2004? Remember to count college students who don't believe the draft is coming.

NOW give me your "winning" percentage.

[elperromagico]

21. Why are his reelect numbers in the upper 40s/lower 50s then?

He only got 48% of the vote in 2000. Your formula is interesting, but it doesn't explain why 51% of those polled in the latest Time say they will probably vote to reelect him.

Now, it may become the case that as voters become more familiar with our Dem candidates, and as we close ranks around a single candidate, Bush's numbers will drop. But right now, your formula just doesn't add up.

[PAMod]

20. If the economy starts to slip and there is a HUGE scandal...

exposing Bush to be both incompetent AND dishonest, coupled with a Democratic nominee that excites the base and attracts the center (Howard Dean), I could see a widening of the popular vote in our favor.

Otherwise, and probably, it will be another 50/50 squeaker in the popular vote & the electoral vote.

[ochazuke]

41. That's more like it.

It doesn't matter so much who the Dems nominate as what the National Mood is in the run-up period. Economic stagnation, frustration with Empire, disgust over the governance of bushco -- that's the sort of thing that would sweep those loser re-pigs out of power in a landslide.

[JNelson6563]

22. you betcha!

Between the Dems who are ABB, the Indies, Greens and moderate Repubs, all of which have massive ABB populations, the boy king is about to be deposed this year.

I know I am doing all I can at my end to make sure we Dems win no matter what. Grow the Party! Do all you can to achieve this!

Julie

[no name no slogan]

24. HELL YES!

I'm sick and tired of the pessimism that this party has been breeding since the 1990s. Back when we had REAL, unapologetic DEMCRATS running for office, we didn't back down from a fight.

But since the centrists have gained control of the party, all anybody ever worries about is fundraising. NONE of them is ready to challenge the status quo, to stand for REAL CHANGE like FDR and JFK and RFK did. They're too damn scared of pissing off their corporate masters to get too "controversial".

If we pick a REAL democrat who's not afraid to be a liberal populist on economic matters, we'll have a HUUUUUGE landslide. But, if we insist of picking a mushball "centrist" who thinks that NAFTA has been "okay", then we're royally screwed.

Even in 2002 (the Newt Revolution), the Democratic congressmen who got re-elected were the ones who STOOD UP TO THE BFEE and challenged their policies-- even when they were outspent! We CAN have our landslide IF WE STICK TO OUR ISSUES!!!

People WANT a true opposition party. If they want Republicans, they'll vote for them-- not some half-assed apologetic immitation. It's time the Dems remembered this.

Otherwise, look forward to another four years of Shrubby.

[kang]

28. Too early to tell anything

alot can happen between now and November. IMHO, it's going to be a very tight race since they've got all the money and we've got all the truth. It's the battle of the world-class liars vs. US. They're going to run on National Security and Personality/Values. They can't run on the issues in a real way, so they're going to try to get Americans to seriously discount any message from the Dem candidate (too Angry/partisan in Dean's case, too opportunistic/integrity in Clark's, etc.).

[PATRICK]

29. Don't dare

Possible but not predictable. This won't be a fair election even by current low standards. The mobilization of an unshakable majority will be obscured and denied until the last possible moment. Bush within range of a "surprise" upset still means a possible Bush second term.

To really win you have to unfix the bad stuff and make the majority undeniable and militant. Otherwise, who knows? Bush in reality is a shallow bluff without massive cheating and Pravda on his side.

Also watch yourselves regarding unity, disruption, dirty tricks, sloppy paranoia, naive optimism, presumptions, lack of money, traitors like chip- on- shoulder Ed Koch or Zell Miller, and roll over the dirt with a steamroller.

Stay loud and in the streets. Record every single event and name at the polling places that even has a whiff of fraud. It's happened here and we can never relax again.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Yes. Unlikely, but yes. Here's how:

We could solidly win with several candidates under the following scenario, but if it plays out this way and Clark is our nominee it could be a landslide.

Biggest single variable, world events and terrorist attacks. If their is a coup in Pakistan's,say, or a major new terrorist attack in the USA, and Bush looks over his head, and/or it is shown that he had ill prepared to deal with the situation, a loss of confidence in him would follow. Most Democrats would benefit, but Clark would the most, because many would be reassured by his military background and foreign affairs experience. Kerry would get a big bounce also from those events.

Economy stalls out, more job losses, new corporate scandals. Two out of three of those would weaken Bush. All Democrats would benefit.

Clark best positioned to lead Democrats to landslide win because he is from the South, veterans can relate to him, Independents can relate to his non partisan past. Those are the ingredients needed to turn around some current solidly Bush states, rather than simply winning the General Election.

[reachout]

31. No

The landscape doesn't read "landslide" at all, for either side.

Bush has a very high approval rating for an incumbent going into an election year.

I think the popular vote will come down to two percentage points or less.

Unless things significantly in three or four key states, Bush will pull and electoral majority...even if he loses the popular vote again.

[meow mix]

35. i thought the republican terminator would lose

but then he didnt, and now he's our gov.

no i didnt dream this up..
it really happened.
(sorry i just have to keep reminding myself of that)

[maddezmom]

36. nope, it's going to be close again

no landslides in either camp, it's going to be tough all the way to victory for the dems. If we don't eat each other alive first.

[Leilani]

38. I think it will be a tough race because of media

The supposed "mainstream media", the networks, CNN, NY Times, Wash Post, have all treated Shrub like an Emperor. Then add talk radio, Faux news, etc. & it's hard to get our message out.

At this point, I feel that Shrub could murder someone, & the press will say he is still popular. The don't hold him accountable.

[Constitution]

Only if Kucinich is the nominee

Clark, Edwards and Kerry will do well too.

[bigwillq]

39. Not a landslide either way

If Bush wins (I hope not, please no) it will be close. If the DEM wins, it'll be close also. I think less than 5% either way.

[Constitution]

40. Only if Kucinich is the nominee

Clark, Edwards and Kerry will do well too.

[arewethereyet]

42. if we win, we'll win narrowly

not quite as narrowly as 2000 though I would hope.

If we do not it could be anything from narrowly to landslide depending on who runs, any economic or Iraqi surprizes and this assumes no missteps by our candidate and that a reasonable amount of money comes forth in indirect contributions.

Or, if we run Edwards, who can go through this very competantly and has a solid platform and the PAC's come on board, we can win. Kerry could win Gephardt maybe, Lieberman possibly. The others ? Won't avoid the missteps or cannot be attractive to enough voters.

[Clark4VotingRights]

43. I think votes will be cast for Dems in a landslide.

I don't know if they'll be counted in a landslide.