Pundits see a Hillary landslide on the horizon
Chidanand.Rajghatta @timesgroup.com
WASHINGTON: Barack Obama scored 365 electoral votes (out of 538) against John McCain’s 173 to win the 2008 presidential election, 270 being tie-breaking winning mark. He repeated the feat in 2012 with a slightly lower but still comfortable margin — 332 against Mitt Romney’s 206 — to remain in the White House. Whether either, or both, constituted a landslide has long been debated in US political circles, because there is no objective definition of landslide.
Some pundits suggest that anything over 350 electoral votes (and 55% of votes cast) constitutes a landslide in today’s US politics, where the electoral base and popular vote is so calcified in the two-party system that both sides are bound to get at least 40% votes — and win at least 18 states each — with the remaining dozen of so states and 20% swing voters deciding the election. Awarding of electoral votes is based on each candidate winning the popular vote in each state, the winner of popular vote taking all the state’s electoral votes in most cases.
Others still hark back to the 1936 election — where Franklin Roosevelt beat Alf Landon 523 to 8 in the electoral vote and 61% to 37% in the popular vote — as the true benchmark for a landslide.
Only Ronald Reagan came anywhere close in the modern era, defeating Walter Mondale, 525 to 13 in the electoral vote and 59% to 41% in popular votes – a certifiable landslide. In contrast, the 2000 Bush v Gore election was the narrowest: Gore won the popular vote 48.4% to Bush’s 47.9%, but lost the electoral vote (which decides who wins the White House) by 271 to 266.
All these scenarios are being replayed during the 2016 Presidential election with the American commentariat broadly agreeing that Hillary Clinton is comfortably on track for a big win, if not an electoral vote landslide in modern terms. “Clinton’s advisers tell her to prep for a landslide,” the journal Politico headlined a recent story that said the Democratic candidate has so many routes to winning 270 electoral votes that there is now a distinct possibility of an overwhelming victory despite polls showing she is coming up short on trust.
According to some pollsters, Clinton has a “blue wall” of states — states that are solidly Democratic — that will straightaway give her 249 electoral votes. All she needs is to win a couple of other “toss-up states” — such as Pennsylvania and New Hampshire (where opinion polls show she is already 10 points ahead) — to cross the 270 mark. She also has several other routes to 270 since there are many other swing states such as Florida and Ohio that she can win.
In contrast, Trump will have to retain the “red wall” of states — which are solidly Republican and yield about 180 electoral votes — and win almost every tossup stateto have a chance of crossing 270. Infact, some typically red states —Georgia, Utah, and Arizona — are starting to look vulnerable with the Democrats making quick inroads.
“She is sitting at 269 electoral votes guaranteed right now,” David Plouffe, the architect of Barack Obama’s two victories and an outside adviser to Clinton’s campaign said.
Clinton supporters see several routes to the White House. The so-called East Coast path, for instance, would guarantee 317 electoral votes by picking up New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. Focus on the Latinos vote in Florida, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, all of which have a heavy Hispanic base, would put her at 295 electoral votes; A Rust Belt strategy centering on Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa would put her at 293 electoral votes without North Carolina, Georgia, Florida or Nevada.
If she wins all of then, she might even overtake Obama’s 2008 “landslide” of 365 electoral votes.