1) The path to a GOP Presidential landslide lies in lessons learned from 2004 and 2016. Both of these elections resulted in GOP victories, but none that could be called "decisive." Why? Because each had key weaknesses that Reagan's 1980 and 1984 landslides did not.

2) Let's start by defining the base of each party. Democrats are the party of social/cultural liberals (mostly white, some Asian) and grievance minorities (mostly black, but there are quite a few Hispanics).

3) Republicans are the party of conservatives: economic, social, and cultural. There is a "core" of America, maybe 40%, that subscribes to this: mostly white, some token minorities (many of whom are evangelicals).

4) Up for grabs is everyone who's biggest political variable/cause does not fit into either party's core. These are the swing groups, and there are 3 of them, demographically speaking: white working class in the rust belt, hispanic working class in the sun belt, and suburbacucks.

5) Republican victories in 2004 and 2016 were not decisive because Bush and Trump barely won half of the voters, collectively speaking. They each won one group outright, split the baby on another, and did terribly on the third.

6) Bush in 2004 did well among suburbacucks, mediocre among the hispanic working class (but well for a Republican), and did terribly among working class whites in the rust belt. His overperformance among hispanics (44%) is what allowed him a narrow electoral victory in 2004.

7) Republicans learned the wrong lesson from this, or rather, deluded themselves into believing the wrong reasons for the performance among Hispanics. They played to the same economic issues that suburbacucks vote for: chamber of commerce economic bullshit that pads 401(k)s.

8) Hispanics voted more Republican than usual primarily because they benefited economically during this time with the housing bubble. Cheap credit and and otherwise good economy being propped up by such (CoC, Wall Street) allowed many to buy their first homes.

9) Becoming a homeowner is the biggest event in someone's life that turns them conservative on economics, and also makes them law-and-order conservatives (because they then have something to lose).

10) Bush, barely scraped by with an Electoral victory in 2004 though. Kerry could have easily won the election while losing the popular vote simply by flipping Ohio, and he came close. Why? Bush did terribly among rust belt white working class.

11) Many rust belt WWC care about jobs, and economic/social stability more than anything else. This is a region of the country that's been hurt by globalist economic policies. Even during the housing boom, the region did not benefit. Why? Slow population growth to begin with.

12) And the fact that many of them already own their own homes. So what benefit is cheap credit to them when there are none or fewer jobs to take in areas like manufacturing? Bush barely won Ohio thanks to suburbacucks in Cincy and Columbus.

13) Romney comes along in 2012 and does very well among suburbacucks, better than Bush in some ways. He's a mangerial white collar type, who appeals to them. But that kind of character turns off the working class of all regions and races. It's no wonder he lost both WC groups.

14) Trump comes along in 2016 and figures out how to win the white working class in the rust belt: he does mediocre at best among suburbacucks, and only marginally better than Romney among hispanic working class. This pays off electorally by keeping most of the red states.

15)... since very few red states are close to begin with, and it flips some previously close blue states in the rust belt into the red column.

16) So the key to a Republican winning an electoral landslide is to realize that no non-swing vote is up for grabs. Quit trying to appeal to people who will never vote for you because they hate you and people who will always vote for you simply because they hate the other side.

17) A Republican who can perform at Trump's level among the rust belt white working class, Bush's level (or better) among the Hispanic working class in the sun belt, and Romney's level among suburbacucks for electoral insurance, can win 40 states easily.

18) Remember, 2004 was close because while Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote, he did mediocre among white voters, getting only 54%. A Republican who performs well among all three swing groups would probably get 45% (or more) of the Hispanic vote and 65% of the white vote.

19) Multiply those numbers by their percentage of the electorate, factor in blacks who will always vote 90% or more Democrat, and you get a popular vote victory of about 57%, close to Reagan's victory in 1984.

20) So 57% of the popular vote, and doing well among all three swing groups in all states would net 40 or more states, including many blue states that would fall simply due to the bandwaggoning effect. If it's obvious the Democrat will lose, many of their voters will stay home.

21) So how do you do well among all three groups as a Republican? Economic nationalism for rust belt white working class, Economic gibs and opportunity for the hispanic working class (quit Hispandering to amnesty and "muh Hispanics are natural conservative!" Karl Rove BS)...

22) And enough chips for suburbacucks via keeping their 401(k)s going up and serving as a mark of safety and stability in contrast with the Democrats.

23) Bottom line: if Trump can keep almost every voter he had in 2016, get 40% of the Hispanic vote, win back enough of the suburbacucks (who voted for Johnson or Hillary as NeverTrumps), he will win the popular vote and about 35 states...

24) If he does extraordinarily well among all three, such that he pushes 65% of the white vote (by getting Bush/Romney levels of suburbacucks in addition to rust belt WWC) and 45% of the Hispanic vote (or even a majority, like Nixon did in 72), a 40-state landslide is in the bag.

25) But it will only happen if Trump and and the GOP collectively (its voters and its politicians) quit gaslighting themselves by listening to Establishment media talking points. The blueprints are there from two campaigns. It's simply a matter of meshing them together.

26) The odd thing about all this is that I suspect you are more likely to find Democrats who would bet more on the GOP's future than many Republicans who are obsessed with playing political and electoral defense. They know what's up. Don't forget, Trump was once a Democrat.

27) And so was Reagan.