• 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?!?!

If we consider 10% of popular vote and 200 electoral votes to be a landslide, I think that is very possible.

I wonder, where is the current over/under? I'd say 8% and 150 electoral votes.
 
EGarrett said:
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.
Click to expand...

It'd be cracked, probably within hours.
 
Peephole said:
What is considered a landslide?

A 10% win in the popular vote is possible. Is that a landslide?
Click to expand...

I point back to Cleon's post, is a landslide popular vote or electoral?

I don't really know, this is all just opinions here so I think if you are saying a 10% popular vote win is a landslide that is completely valid.

In my eyes I think a 10% popular vote win is probably going to get you a pretty big chunk of the electoral vote as well but (again this is all opinion) a 370 point electoral win coupled with that would be a pretty good definition of a landslide.
 
370 is only ~60%. Not really a landslide to me. It's a big win, undisputable. But landslide is probably a bit much especially considering how easy it is to manipulate the electoral votes. I don't even think you'd need a majority of the states to get 370. Having a decided majority of all three, votes, electoral votes, and states would probably be a good measure of a landslide.
 
Whiplash said:
My opinion of a landslide would be something like 400+ electoral votes.
Click to expand...
If Obama gets every toss-up, he's at 375 electoral votes. The easiest road to 400 would then probably be winning Montana, North Dakota, Georgia and West-Virginia. But they've more or less abandoned North Dakota (pulled out all ads and, I think all staff) and Georgia (pulled out all ads and some staff). And it's not clear if they're investing seriously in West-Virginia.
 
dirtywick said:
370 is only ~60%. Not really a landslide to me. It's a big win, undisputable. But landslide is probably a bit much especially considering how easy it is to manipulate the electoral votes. I don't even think you'd need a majority of the states to get 370. Having a decided majority of all three, votes, electoral votes, and states would probably be a good measure of a landslide.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. As I said this is all about opinions and such.

How do you feel about 370 electoral votes and 10% of the popular vote?
 
dirtywick said:
370 is only ~60%. Not really a landslide to me. It's a big win, undisputable. But landslide is probably a bit much especially considering how easy it is to manipulate the electoral votes. I don't even think you'd need a majority of the states to get 370. Having a decided majority of all three, votes, electoral votes, and states would probably be a good measure of a landslide.
Click to expand...
370 is 69% of the electoral college.
 
not_so_new said:
Fair enough. As I said this is all about opinions and such.

How do you feel about 370 electoral votes and 10% of the popular vote?
Click to expand...

60% and 55%. That's a solid win. I couldn't say landslide, though. At that, it's just everything that's not close is a landslide.
 
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...

Yeah, it would suck for the Republicans if the election was decided based on FACTS for once. Better hop into the breach and prevent that.
 
ZirconBlue said:
When I think "landslide", I think Reagan/Mondale: That big red map with just poor little blue Minnesota on it. What was the popular vote spread that year?
Click to expand...
That was an incumbent victory, non-incumbent victors usually score lower.

Non-incumbent victories since 1932:

2000 Gore - Bush 0.5
1992 Clinton - Bush 6.4
1988 Dukakis - Bush 7.8
1980 Carter - Reagan 9.7
1976 Carter - Ford 2.1
1968 Humphrey - Nixon 0.7
1960 Kennedy - Nixon 0.2
1952 Stevenson - Eisenhower 10.9
1932 Roosevelt - Hoover 17.7
 
XBoxWarrior said:
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?
Click to expand...


Seen on a bumper sticker:

"The difference between Palin and Bush? Lipstick."
 
I always find it funny when someone insults someone elses intelligence while spelling a word horribly wrong themselves. "Moran" indeed. That is priceless, right up there with "your an idiot". It's pretty "rediculous".
 
Whiplash said:
I always find it funny when someone insults someone elses intelligence while spelling a word horribly wrong themselves. "Moran" indeed. That is priceless, right up there with "your an idiot". It's pretty "rediculous".
Click to expand...
* sighs *

It's a reference to this famous image.

moran.jpg


"Elses"?
 
These are my personal milestones for electoral votes:
300 = clear victory
350 = decisive victory
400 = landslide victory

For popular vote:
51% = clear victory
55% = decisive victory
60% = landslide victory

My prediction for the election is Obama gets a decisive electoral / clear popular victory.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Possibly. But then again, if the country is non-racist enough to *nominate* Obama in the first place for the democratic ticket, why should people feel so insecure about telling pollsters the truth? If there is one good thing coming out of this campaign, it's how *little* race seems to play a role.
 
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...
There's no evidence for that, in contrary:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/persistent-myth-of-bradley-effect.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom