There has been quite a bit of talk among the pundits that this is shaping up to be one of the closest elections ever. Clearly, both sides are tightly contesting the campaign, and polls have consistently shown a statistical tie (or near to one) between President Bush and Senator Kerry. What is more, partisanship in the nation is at levels not seen for decades. Nevertheless, history shows that plenty of elections have possessed all of these things yet have turned out to be landslides rather than nail biters.

In the past century 25 Presidential elections were held, five of which had margins tight enough in either the electoral vote or the popular vote to be deemed "close" (at least by this author): 1916, 1960, 1968, 1976 and of course 2000. Each of these featured either a sitting President or Vice President, so all were in effect a referendum on the previous term or terms. Moreover, each contained the aforementioned facets of this current election (highly contested, close polls [when available], and partisanship). Nonetheless, all five had one key attribute not found in this election.

1916, 1960, 1968, 1976 and 2000 all came on the heels of landslide elections.

• In 1912, New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson defeated a split Republican Party by a comfortable margin in the popular vote that led to 435 of 531 electoral votes
  
• 1956 saw President Dwight Eisenhower reelected by almost 10 million votes and 457 of 531 electoral votes.
  
• President Lyndon Johnson was reelected by an even larger margin in 1964, nearly 15 million votes more than Goldwater and 486 of 538 electoral votes.
  
• In 1972, President Nixon won another term with almost 18 million votes than his competitor and 520 of 538 electoral votes.
  
• Bill Clinton was never seriously concerned with his challenger Bob Dole and won 379 of 538 electoral votes.

In each of these elections--1912, '56, etc.--the losing party was forced to retool, rededicate, create a new vision and embrace a new standard bearer. As a result, each of these five close elections had formerly demoralized minority parties that had risen from the ashes of defeat to mount a more effective campaign that resounded with the American people.

Though the Democratic Party has definitely undergone a significant retooling and rebuilding over the past four years (and the past two, in particular), they began in a much better situation the losers in the five elections mentioned above (they did win the plurality in 2000). Accordingly, it would be foolish to think that they would merely end up exactly where they were four years ago with a new candidate and a new message.

Even more important than these historical comparisons to 2004 that are in part based on opinion are the solid historical facts about close elections in the past century. At no point during the 20th century did the country see two consecutive close elections (you would have to go back to the period of extreme partisan parity and third parties during the late 19th century to see this occur). 1916 was followed by a Warren Harding landslide in 1920; 1960 was followed by a Johnson landslide four years later; 1968 was close, but Nixon demolished McGovern in '72; and, Carter may have won by a small margin in 1976, but he was trounced in 1980.

There are a number of reasons why we haven't seen two close consecutive elections in 112 years (I'm sure we all have our opinions on the matter, like how the country will not stomach two such contests or how the cyclical nature of American politics inhibits it), but the fact is that they just don't happen any more, period. So when you hear some pundit (who knows about as much about politics as you or me) proclaim that this election will be as close as four years ago, let him know that he's plain wrong... it's not gonna happen.