What's your criteria for the term 'Landslide'?

[Thomas D]

In my opinion you have to meet 5 of these 6 standards:

1.Over 50% of the popular vote.

2. Over 358 Electoral votes. (358.8 is 2/3 of 538)

3. Won by at least 8 points.

4. Party pick up of 20 house seats

5. Party pick up of 5 Senate seats.

6. Winning at least one state in 10 of these 11 regions. (Regions from 538.com)

[Californian Tony]

These are ridiculously low standards for a landslide. Taking the same criterias, here is how I'd rather see it :

In my opinion you have to meet 5 of these 6 standards:
1.Over 55% of the popular vote.

2. Over 430 Electoral votes. (430.4 is 4/5 of 538)

3. Won by at least 15 points.

4. Party pick up of 20 house seats

5. Party pick up of 5 Senate seats.

6. Winning at least one state in 9 of these 11 regions. (Regions from 538.com)

The congressional elections are irrelevant.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

5. Party pick up of 5 Senate seats.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Popular vote: Margin of at least 10% between the winner and runner-up
Electoral vote: Winner takes 400 EVs or more

[Thomas D]

In regards to 1972 & 1984, If a candidate wins almost 60% of the popular vote and can't pick up 20 house seats then I think it's fair to ask if that's really a landslide. I know Nixon and Reagan won 49 states those years, But the lack of any coattails at all diminishes their accomplishments in those elections. In the 1982 Midterms Reagan lost 21 house seats. He should have been able to win all of those back and more in 1984. 1972 and 1984 were very decisive elections. But in my opinion they were not landslides. But I do think that 1980 was a landslide since in that election Reagan won big and picked up 34 house seats and 12 Senate seats.

Also, Antonio. While you say my standards are too low, since 1948 3 election have met my criteria (1952,1964,1980) and 4 have met yours (1956,1964,1972,1984)

[Californian Tony]

Also, Antonio. While you say my standards are too low, since 1948 3 election have met my criteria (1952,1964,1980) and 4 have met yours (1956,1964,1972,1984)

Well, this is due to me not taking into account congressional criteria, which for me are not pertinent to judge a presidential election. If you abandon those criteria, you have 5 election, and 3 others almost meet them (1988, 1996 and 2008).

[Thomas D]

Why?

Neither Nixon nor Reagan were running for Congress in those years. I'm not sure the Congressional numbers are relevant to whether or not Nixon and Reagan achieved a landslide presidential election result.

But it's my opinion that it does matter. I know a lot of people would say otherwise. I think landslide should mean "an Election that transformed the nation." And 72 and 84 didn't

Also, Antonio. While you say my standards are too low, since 1948 3 election have met my criteria (1952,1964,1980) and 4 have met yours (1956,1964,1972,1984)

Well, this is due to me not taking into account congressional criteria, which for me are not pertinent to judge a presidential election. If you abandon those criteria, you have 5 election, and 3 others almost meet them (1988, 1996 and 2008).

1996 doesn't come close. Clinton didn't get the most important one because he didn't get 50% of the vote.

[Californian Tony]

Also, Antonio. While you say my standards are too low, since 1948 3 election have met my criteria (1952,1964,1980) and 4 have met yours (1956,1964,1972,1984)

Well, this is due to me not taking into account congressional criteria, which for me are not pertinent to judge a presidential election. If you abandon those criteria, you have 5 election, and 3 others almost meet them (1988, 1996 and 2008).

1996 doesn't come close. Clinton didn't get the most important one because he didn't get 50% of the vote.

He came close to.

[Californian Tony]

I think landslide should mean "an Election that transformed the nation."

And I think it's where the problem lays. What you erroneously call a landslide is a "realigning election" (indeed 1980 was). But a landslide isn't necessarily a realigning election, it just means a very big win.

[Thomas D]

I think landslide should mean "an Election that transformed the nation."

And I think it's where the problem lays. What you erroneously call a landslide is a "realigning election" (indeed 1980 was). But a landslide isn't necessarily a realigning election, it just means a very big win.

And that's the point of this topic. You think Landslide means one thing. I think it means something else. I'm not saying you're wrong.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

While 2000 was by no means a landslide, it was a realigning election - the "outer South" states that Clinton carried became solid GOP, while CA and NJ became solid Dem.

[Californian Tony]

I think landslide should mean "an Election that transformed the nation."

And I think it's where the problem lays. What you erroneously call a landslide is a "realigning election" (indeed 1980 was). But a landslide isn't necessarily a realigning election, it just means a very big win.

And that's the point of this topic. You think Landslide means one thing. I think it means something else. I'm not saying you're wrong.

In this case, that's not about what one thinks a landslide is or isn't. The word "landslide" just doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Thomas D]

I admit my definition is a less common one. But I stand by it.

I think 2000 could have been a realiging election. But with the Jeffords party switch and 9/11 we'll never know how 2000-2002 would have turned out otherwise. 1992 was, even if it was short lived and Clinton only got 43% of the vote.

[Californian Tony]

I admit my definition is a less common one. But I stand by it.

Well, let's agree to disagree.

[Thomas D]

I admit my definition is a less common one. But I stand by it.

Well, let's agree to disagree.

Agreed.

[DS0816]

Thomas D,

It's more difficult now for a landslide, but I figure: prevailing nationally by a minimum of 10% over one's chief opponent plus a 2-to-1 spread in the Electoral College (say, 360).

We have a good amount of states, lately, that are strongly partisan (above 10 points even for the party that loses by roughly 5% nationally).

Just monitoring overperformances and underperformances, in [core] states' pollings, was enough to tell -- early on (first three months) -- that Election 2008 would be a pickup in the White House for the Democrats.

[GeorgiaSenator]

In my book a landslide occurs when the losing candidate for President gets less than 100 electoral votes (unless a significant Independent is in the race).

[MorningInAmerica]

"

And I think it's where the problem lays. What you erroneously call a landslide is a "realigning election" (indeed 1980 was). But a landslide isn't necessarily a realigning election, it just means a very big win.

Though I think this is completely subjective, I think I agree most with this sentiment. And using that definition, I think a landslide is any presidential election where a candidate wins by about 8 points or more. When a candidate wins by that sort of a margin, they're going to take at least 350 or more electoral college votes, more often than not. Plus, to me, it just looks right on paper. 53-47%, with a 305-230 electoral college result just doesn't look like a landslide to me. But take for example Clinton in '96, where he defeated Dole 49.2-40.7, with 379-159 electoral votes. In my personal opinion, that looks like a landslide to me. As well as 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1996 - only considering races post-FDR.

I view 1988 and 2008 as the cut-offs. 1988 gets called a landslide because Bush won by +7.72 points, but most importantly, he somehow managed a 426 electoral college rut, to Dukakis' 111. That's pretty significant to me. Obama's pop vote was just slightly smaller than Bush's, +7.27 points, while Obama's electoral college margin was a bit smaller, 365-173.

Again, completely subjective, that's just how I see it.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

400+ Electoral votes, 10%+ lead in the popular vote, and noticeable coattails (even if the president's re-election doesn't bring any new majorities).

[frihetsivrare]

In the electoral college, a landslide to me is 404 (75%).
In the popular vote, a landslide has the winner ahead by >10%.

To me, 1988 was a half-landslide.  96 and 2008 were not landslides, but they were close.  In the last 60 years, the only complete landslides were 1952, 56, 64, 72, 80 and 84.

[Grumps]

This is the ultimate example.....we may never see it again.

[Liberalrocks]

This is the ultimate example.....we may never see it again.

Nixons popular vote margin was considerably bigger then Reagans. Nixon recieved over 60% McGovern only got 37% where as Reagan won 58% to Mondale's 40.5% Reagans share of the electoral vote was larger but had Hawaii and Alaska been states under FDR Im sure he would hold the record for his 1936 reelection.

[Liberalrocks]

In the electoral college, a landslide to me is 404 (75%).
In the popular vote, a landslide has the winner ahead by >10%.

To me, 1988 was a half-landslide.  96 and 2008 were not landslides, but they were close.  In the last 60 years, the only complete landslides were 1952, 56, 64, 72, 80 and 84.

This.
I agree and approve of your message!

[MilesC56]

Presidential:
- 400 EVs + 10% lead in popular vote.

Congressional + Gubernatorial:
-20% margin of victory

[Californian Tony]

I think most of you have far too broad definitions of a landslide. Really, the word "landslide" indicates a particularly unusual and massive event. Calling 1988 or 1996 "landslides" deprives the word of any meaning.

Over 80% EV.
Over 55% PV.
Margin over 15%.
Those are criterias that make a landslide truly exceptional. That way, only 1928, 1932, 1936, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984 meet them. 7 elections out of 47 elections (previous to 1824 were not counted due to lack of PV), ie 15%. Under your criteria, more than one third would qualify as landslides.