Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2014, 11:10:11 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  What's your criteria for the term 'Landslide'?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: What's your criteria for the term 'Landslide'?  (Read 4362 times)
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3442
United States


View Profile
« on: December 09, 2010, 07:03:30 pm »
Ignore

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)

Logged
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28814
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2010, 09:12:32 am »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2010, 09:14:03 am by Antonio V »Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
hantheguitarman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2253


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2010, 12:17:44 pm »
Ignore

5. Party pick up of 5 Senate seats.



Logged

RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9471
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2010, 03:02:57 pm »
Ignore

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

Clearly the solution is to privatize presidential elections.

So, in less than four years, get excited for the 2016 MetLife Financial U Pick The Prez Extravaganza. If you tweet a picture of your completed ballot with the hashtag #ivoted, you could win a trip for two to the inauguration or an iTunes gift card.
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3442
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2010, 05:41:36 pm »
Ignore

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)


« Last Edit: December 10, 2010, 09:46:56 pm by Thomas D »Logged
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28814
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2010, 06:00:51 am »
Ignore

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).
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3442
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2010, 09:21:01 am »
Ignore


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.
Logged
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28814
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2010, 09:23:54 am »
Ignore

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. Wink
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28814
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2010, 09:27:19 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3442
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2010, 09:48:20 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8410
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2010, 10:01:23 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28814
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2010, 10:23:51 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3442
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2010, 10:37:01 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28814
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2010, 10:38:44 am »
Ignore

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

Well, let's agree to disagree. Wink
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3442
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2010, 10:41:17 am »
Ignore

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

Well, let's agree to disagree. Wink

Agreed. Smiley
Logged
DS0816
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 973
View Profile
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2010, 03:54:21 am »
Ignore

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.



Logged
GeorgiaSenator
Full Member
***
Posts: 105
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2011, 03:31:34 pm »
Ignore

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).
Logged
MorningInAmerica
polijunkie3057
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 786
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: 0.52

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2011, 12:20:54 am »
Ignore

"

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.
Logged

"...the media helped tip the scales. I didn't think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair..."

- Jake Tapper, Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News

"The media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants."

 - Mark Halperin, author of 2008's 'Game Change.'
FBF
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3944
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2011, 11:43:28 pm »
Ignore

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).
Logged
frihetsivrare
Volksliberalist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 616


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -7.13

P P

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2011, 12:07:24 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Tired of Canadian and American federal tyranny?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxiiI3fjS2c
Grumps
GM3PRP
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32644
Vatican City State
View Profile
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2011, 12:35:36 pm »
Ignore

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

In one thread -

Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 11:45:57 pm by True Federalist

Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 11:43:45 pm by True Federalist

Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 11:41:31 pm by True Federalist

-------------------------

Good call on the edit, Ernest.  We don't want the jailed mass murderer to call Dave on copyright infringement.
Liberalrocks
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 840
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2011, 09:10:08 pm »
Ignore


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.
Logged

"If Hillary gave Obama one of her balls they both would have two ! "-James Carville.....Hillary 2016 !
Liberalrocks
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 840
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2011, 09:11:15 pm »
Ignore

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!
Logged

"If Hillary gave Obama one of her balls they both would have two ! "-James Carville.....Hillary 2016 !
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13038
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.26, S: 6.26

View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2011, 11:07:29 pm »
Ignore

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

Congressional + Gubernatorial:
-20% margin of victory

Logged

Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28814
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2011, 01:00:35 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines