>

In a true 2 party contest, I don’t think it’s doable as of right now. But the Sword of Damocles that hangs over this discussion is Trump’s footsie/pseudo-threat to form a third party or encourage his supporters to sit out an election where he’s not the nominee. Having turned the GOP into a policy-free grievance cesspool, there’s a sizable chunk of the Republican base that would not care about the policy impact of splitting the vote on the right. All it would take is 10-15% of self ID’d Republicans (and the MAGA die hard independents who in reality are anything but) staying home/writing in Trump/protest voting and every pink state/EV would be in play (FL, IA, ME-2, NC, OH, TX…if it was toward the high end of that estimate perhaps even AK, KS, MO, MT, SC). No such threat exists on the Democratic side (indeed—having lost the White House twice in a single generation because of factional left wing candidates has likely silenced left of center spoiler candidates for the rest of my lifetime). 
So I doubt it’s doable, but to the extent that it IS, it would be a Democrat who did it.
The short answer is No.  The long answer is Heeeelllll Nooooo!!  
It's sad, but we're in a very different political world than we were 30 years ago. >

It's not sad. The last candidates that got that many votes (Reagan, Nixon) were terrible. Like. Really terrible. >

It’s always funny to see people on Reddit bash Reagan, when the real world opinion of him is still overwhelmingly positive. I often wonder how many people shitting on him actually lived through any of his presidency. >


when the real world opinion of him is still overwhelmingly positive

You got any evidence for that assertion?

I often wonder how many people shitting on him actually lived through any of his presidency.

If you weren't alive, your opinion is irrelevant?
EDIT: lol this person below really responded to me and then blocked me immediately
The link busean posted below proves them wrong
Giddyup claims I asked for evidence of an opinion, but that never happened. >

Nope. The country is way too divided for landslides like that to ever happen again. Honestly, even Obama’s 2012 numbers (332 electoral votes) seem hard to reach these days. >

No. 350 is the new 400.
But, Democrats have a more reasonable path to it than the GOP does.
Start with Biden's map from 2020. Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio gets you to 406.
Spot the GOP Trump's map from 2016, give them every swing state, and even states like Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, and Nevada, and they're still stuck at 350ish.
You'd have to have a candidate so broadly acceptable, or such a weak opposing candidate, as to defy logic. Even a divisive candidate will get you 230 EV or so. >

To hit 400, the GOP would need to run an old-school Rockefeller Republican who, somehow and someway, would put New York in play.
But yeah, won't happen in our current political climate. >

If they did that, there would very likely be a 3rd party challenge from a conservative, a MAGA, or both. >

if we go to war it is more likely the president might get 400 votes. otherwise, no
There is a rally and pull together effect , in my opinion, that would unite the country as we fight off the threat. >

Question: Would that work both ways? i.e. would a Democrat get the same benefit from this as a Republican? I suspect not. >

i believe so. Though personally i was happy we had a gop president when 9/11 hit..even though I thought he was not very intelligent and a dry drunk I always had thought the gop were more hawkish. And if war occurs that might be a good thing. However now that the potential threats from some countries are more apparent and some countries are labeled enemies or implicity labeled enemies from both sides of the aisle I believe either side is likely to do well. Now there is a basic understanding among all that diplomacy and treaties, over the course of history, delay but do not stop war. That is an important understanding. >

In our current political climate? No. But Democrats have a better shot of taking Texas than Republicans do of taking California. So by this logic, Democrats will have an easier time capturing 400 than Republicans. 
If we look back to the 2016 map, you can see that Trump dominated the Midwest. If a future GOP candidate repeated this, but also happened to pick up Virginia, Nevada and New Mexico (the three next swing states), that person still wouldn’t have beat Obama’s 2012 electoral victory (never-mind his even larger 2008 ‘landslide’ win). 
But, conversely, looking at Biden’s 2020 map, if a future Dem candidate expanded on it by picking up the three next closest states (North Carolina, Texas, and Florida), then that Democrat would have won 373 votes, even beating Obama’s 2008 landslide win.
This is why the GOP’s structural advantage in the EC is not permanent. They can get past 270 easily (for now), but getting above ~330 gets immensely more difficult. The moment Texas becomes a swing state, the GOP will struggle to get 270 without a dramatic shift in policy. >

I think If the GOP loses Texas twice in a row they will dramatically shift policies. Unfortunately, that's an 8 year time period. And hopes they can't enact enough voter suppression to keep this from happening too much longer. >

Don't a lot of people move for jobs? There are pockets that are very different. >

Not on a first go. The country is too split. But a candidate for either party could get it on the second go depending on how they govern. >

IMO that's unrealistic. Trump governed corruptly and incompetently and look at the 2020 results. >

Not to mention that they'd need a massive wave in their first election so that they could implement any meaningful policy that would convince doubters to vote for them.