• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Landslide? WTF?!?!

not_so_new

Graduate Poster
not_so_new
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
1,554
First, off the top I DO NOT think there will be any landslide in this election. I think it is going to be tooth and nail up to the last ballot is cast and I don't know who the winner will be.

But I am interested in hearing opinions on this. In another thread Whiplash said ....

Whiplash said:
Obama is likely to win, obviously. But it won't be a landslide. This is wishful thinking folks. You'll see. But I agree he's very likely to win, and handily. But landslide? Wake up.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with him there as I said above.

But I am interested in seeing what we all feel a landslide is before election day, what would constitute a landslide in your eyes?
 
I've just been hearing it reported the last two days that many Democrats and bloggers are all a giddy and predicting a huge landslide victory. That's what prompted my comments.

I've resigned myself to Obama winning. I had already done so back a few months ago. I just got excited when McCain/Palin made a race out of it a month or so ago.

My opinion of a landslide would be something like 400+ electoral votes.
 
I think Obama will have a decisive victory. But for McCain to go below, say, ~180, I'd be very surprised. I imagine McCain will probably come in around 200.
 
McCain/Palin supporters, particularly Palin supporters...are like wounded, cornered animals right now. Hyper-sensitive, insecure, vicious, and looking to score any points they can. So I wouldn't be surprised about anything they claim about Obama or Obama supporters at this point.

With that being said, if they ever allow official votes to be cast via the internet...the Obama landslide would be a reality.
 
My problem with the polls is that sometimes it seems that what people tell a poll and how they vote are very different. Since race is an issue, I think the Democrats have to consider the real possibility that a large number of people who say they support Obama in a poll because they don't want to appear racist will not vote for him on election day.

I'm also certain some political scientists have studied how well different polls have predicted elections but I'm too lazy to look it up ATM.
 
Whiplash said:
I've just been hearing it reported the last two days that many Democrats and bloggers are all a giddy and predicting a huge landslide victory. That's what prompted my comments.

I've resigned myself to Obama winning. I had already done so back a few months ago. I just got excited when McCain/Palin made a race out of it a month or so ago.

My opinion of a landslide would be something like 400+ electoral votes.
Click to expand...

Traitor! That's not the opinion you have been espousing around here lately? ;)

Explain how Palin made a race out of it? She is GWB in a skirt.(aka Moran) Although she CAN read the teleprompter...Is that your argument?
 
seayakin said:
My problem with the polls is that sometimes it seems that what people tell a poll and how they vote are very different. Since race is an issue, I think the Democrats have to consider the real possibility that a large number of people who say they support Obama in a poll because they don't want to appear racist will not vote for him on election day.

I'm also certain some political scientists have studied how well different polls have predicted elections but I'm too lazy to look it up ATM.
Click to expand...

I would point out that my thread is about election results and what would constitute a landslide not polls.

;)

But as you bring this up, I posted this in a few other threads earlier.

http://www.physorg.com/news142862643.html

"A good analogy of a desirable response and social pressure, he said, would be if you lived in Detroit and you get a call asking if you will participate in an anonymous survey about automobiles.

"You agree and are asked if you prefer American or foreign cars. Even if you own a Japanese car, you might experience some pressure to give an answer that might be more appreciated by the caller -- that you prefer American cars," said Greenwald. "When it comes to politics, although voters are presumably anonymous when speaking to pollsters, the fact that the person calling them knows their phone number may not let them feel anonymous."

Albertson noted that the polls have systematically underestimated Obama's support and this can have an impact on the election."
Click to expand...
 
"Landslide" is a somewhat weird word for a presidential election, IMO.

The main problem I have with it is that it's never clear whether it's talking about a "landslide" of popular votes, or "landslide" of electoral votes.

The example that comes to mind is 1992; everybody used the word "landslide" to describe the election results. Well, Clinton only got 43% to Bush's 37% of the popular vote* - a six-point difference doesn't scream "landslide" to me. But the electoral votes had a much higher spread - Clinton got 370, 202 more than Bush's paltry 168. That's a heluva difference.

I can easily see something similar happening here; Obama seems to be reaping the electoral vote (according to the polls, usual disclaimers, yadda yadda), while McCain is struggling with states where the GOP used to be a shoe-in. The popular polls, though, show a much closer race--this one, published about an hour ago, shows only a seven-point difference.

To me, "landslide" only really means something when it's applied to the popular vote. If you see a situation where Candidate A beats Candidate B by 30 percentage points, that says something--people really don't like Candidate B. A stark difference in electoral votes only really says that one candidate is popular in more densely populated states, and the other more popular in rural areas.

I want to stress I'm not debating the pros and cons of the Electoral College, I'm just saying that with the way elections are conducted in the US, the word "landslide" (IMO) seems to carry more weight than it really deserves to.


(* This was the Year of Perot, where he got about 19% of the popular vote.)
 
Last edited:
seayakin said:
My problem with the polls is that sometimes it seems that what people tell a poll and how they vote are very different. Since race is an issue, I think the Democrats have to consider the real possibility that a large number of people who say they support Obama in a poll because they don't want to appear racist will not vote for him on election day.

I'm also certain some political scientists have studied how well different polls have predicted elections but I'm too lazy to look it up ATM.
Click to expand...

Some on the right are pointing to "The Bradley Effect" which is based on exactly what you suggested.
 
Thanks Cleon

I agree with all of that. Actually my thread was really related to this point of yours more than anything.

The main problem I have with it is that it's never clear whether it's talking about a "landslide" of popular votes, or "landslide" of electoral votes.
Click to expand...

Anyway, I am just curious what other people's definition of a political landslide is and what conditions would have to be met.

In '04 Bush said he had a clear mandate from the voters. Was '04 a "landslide" in some people's eyes, enough to say that a mandate was issued? Maybe after 2000 Bush did see that as a landslide of sorts but I don't think '04 was a landslide in anyone's definition of the word.

I shouldn't dodge the question anymore myself either. I think a LARGE victory in popular vote, say 7% combined with a 370 or so electoral collage total would be a real landslide.
 
not_so_new said:
I would point out that my thread is about election results and what would constitute a landslide not polls.

;)

But as you bring this up, I posted this in a few other threads earlier.

http://www.physorg.com/news142862643.html
Click to expand...

Sorry, misread your original post. Historically, one of the elections considered a landslide I was just looking at is the 1980 election.

Ronald Wilson Reagan - Popular 43,903,230 50.7% Electoral 489
James Earl Carter, Jr. - Popular 35,480,115 41.0% Electoral 49
John Bayard Anderson - Popular 5,719,850 6.6%

(from Wikipedia)

9% of the popular is still significant but you could probably come up with a statistical definition
 
Do you all remember the 2004 exit polls that had Kerry winning by a landslide?

Apparently this years agenda is to report a close race as a "landslide". Zogby's polling has been in the 3 to 4 % range for Obama, and he takes a lot more care than the usual suspects to not oversample democrats. With a few weeks to go, Obama is favorite but not unreachable. A few more reports of his underhanded dealings with Iraq and advisor meetings with pro Hezbollah and Hamas dirtbags could start to change minds.
 
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Probably the best predictive site out there. The numbers are for election day and not if the vote was held today. They define landslide as 375+ electoral votes and give Obama a 36.74% shot of that happening in his favor.

Current projection shows Obama with 347.6 electoral votes to Mccain's 190.4. However the popular vote is only 51.8% to 46.6% Obama over McCain.

Landslide by electoral vote is a possibility but not a strong one. Landslide by popular vote won't happen unless the vast majority of republicans decide to stay home that day.



Boo
 
seayakin said:
Sorry, misread your original post.
Click to expand...

No problem, it's a free forum.

;)


Historically, one of the elections considered a landslide I was just looking at is the 1980 election.

Ronald Wilson Reagan - Popular 43,903,230 50.7% Electoral 489
James Earl Carter, Jr. - Popular 35,480,115 41.0% Electoral 49
John Bayard Anderson - Popular 5,719,850 6.6%

(from Wikipedia)

9% of the popular is still significant but you could probably come up with a statistical definition
Click to expand...

In MY book that is a landslide and if that is the criteria I don't think we will come even close to that this year.

I agree with Whiplash this talk of "landslide" is pretty over the top.
 
kallsop said:
Do you all remember the 2004 exit polls that had Kerry winning by a landslide?
Click to expand...

Er, no, actually. I remember the exit polling that seemed to indicate Kerry would win, but not by a "landslide."

Apparently this years agenda is to report a close race as a "landslide". Zogby's polling has been in the 3 to 4 % range for Obama, and he takes a lot more care than the usual suspects to not oversample democrats.
Click to expand...
Please take a look at my post here. I think you prove my point quite nicely.

You're talking about a "landslide" of popular votes.
Others, mainly the media, are talking about a "landslide" of electoral votes.

And you're all correct; there's very little chance of Obama getting a "landslide" of popular votes, as you say, but it's very likely that he will get a "landslide" of electoral votes.

In the end, of course, only the electoral votes count as far as victory goes--but a "landslide" there means little beyond the difference of opinion in sparsely populated vs densely populated areas.

By contrast, if a candidate were to win a "landslide" of the popular vote, it would signify a major endorsement of that candidate--or a major rejection of the opposition.

This is why I really think the term means little in the context of a US presidential election.
 
Last edited:
kallsop said:
Do you all remember the 2004 exit polls that had Kerry winning by a landslide?

Apparently this years agenda is to report a close race as a "landslide". Zogby's polling has been in the 3 to 4 % range for Obama, and he takes a lot more care than the usual suspects to not oversample democrats. With a few weeks to go, Obama is favorite but not unreachable. A few more reports of his underhanded dealings with Iraq and advisor meetings with pro Hezbollah and Hamas dirtbags could start to change minds.
Click to expand...

There may have been some issues with Ohio? Remember that Blackwell dude?

How is his political career doing?

Obama Landslide '08.

Deal with it!
 
EGarrett said:
With that being said, if they ever allow official votes to be cast via the internet...the Obama landslide would be a reality.
Click to expand...

If they ever allowed official votes to be cast over the Internet, hackers would be deciding the election.

Which would mean the landslide would go either to Obama or Ron Paul.
 
Cleon said:
If they ever allowed official votes to be cast over the Internet, hackers would be deciding the election.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the main problem. You'd have to receive some specific, encrypted code when you register, that you'd enter along with your social security number in order to log one vote. But even then...people under 25 would find a way to get 100,000 votes and people over 55 would mess it up and end up getting 0.

Which would mean the landslide would go either to Obama or Ron Paul.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Obama would win regardless.
 
What is considered a landslide?

A 10% win in the popular vote is possible. Is that a landslide?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom