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

[The Economist]

I would define a landslide as winning over 400 electoral votes, and winning either by over 7% or winning 58%+ of the popular vote.

Congressional elections are a bad criterion because, say, in Reagan's day, people split their tickets - often they voted for Democrats for Senator and Republican for President. A good example is Georgia's Sam Nunn (D) who was winning around 80% of the vote as Ronald Reagan carried 60% of Georgia. Divided loyalties meant that Reagan's party actually lost 1 seat in the Senate and won only more seats in the House from 1982.

It is undisputed though that Reagan's two elections paved the way for a Republican era that persists to this day so, I mean, his two elections were realigning and landslides. Using the congressional seems to not make a lot of sense, per se.

[Californian Tony]

I would define a landslide as winning over 400 electoral votes, and winning either by over 7% or winning 58%+ of the popular vote.

Either ?
Do you know that winning 58% authomatically means you win by over 7% ?

[The Economist]

I mention this because I classify 1980 as a landslide (Reagan beat Carter by around 10%) but thanks to the third party candidate John Anderson, he didn't win 58% - he won 50.75%.

[Californian Tony]

I mention this because I classify 1980 as a landslide (Reagan beat Carter by around 10%) but thanks to the third party candidate John Anderson, he didn't win 58% - he won 50.75%.

1980 was not a landslide unless you use ridiculously low criterias that make the term void.

Of course if you set your own criterias just to make sure the elections you like are called landslides, it's not surprising.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

I mention this because I classify 1980 as a landslide (Reagan beat Carter by around 10%) but thanks to the third party candidate John Anderson, he didn't win 58% - he won 50.75%.

1980 was not a landslide unless you use ridiculously low criterias that make the term void.

Of course if you set your own criterias just to make sure the elections you like are called landslides, it's not surprising.

Was 1952 a landslide?  What about 1940?  1912?

[Californian Tony]

I mention this because I classify 1980 as a landslide (Reagan beat Carter by around 10%) but thanks to the third party candidate John Anderson, he didn't win 58% - he won 50.75%.

1980 was not a landslide unless you use ridiculously low criterias that make the term void.

Of course if you set your own criterias just to make sure the elections you like are called landslides, it's not surprising.

Was 1952 a landslide?  What about 1940?  1912?

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.

1940 and 1912 were by no way landslides. 1952 almost qualifies, so I think that's open to interpretations.

[The Economist]

I mention this because I classify 1980 as a landslide (Reagan beat Carter by around 10%) but thanks to the third party candidate John Anderson, he didn't win 58% - he won 50.75%.

1980 was not a landslide unless you use ridiculously low criterias that make the term void.

Of course if you set your own criterias just to make sure the elections you like are called landslides, it's not surprising.

How do you not quantify 1980 as a landslide when Reagan won 44 states, 489 electoral votes, and a 10 point win in the popular vote?

[The Economist]

1952: Ike wins by over 7% and wins over 400 electoral votes. So yes, it's a landslide.
1912: Likewise.

[Californian Tony]

Reagan barely got over 50%, and Wilson didn't even come close to.

[The Economist]

I think that kind of misses the point. Both 1912 and 1980 had significant third party candidates. And there's some evidence Reagan would have won more than 51% if Anderson wasn't in the race. Anderson was after all a liberal Republican from Illinois.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I mention this because I classify 1980 as a landslide (Reagan beat Carter by around 10%) but thanks to the third party candidate John Anderson, he didn't win 58% - he won 50.75%.

1980 was not a landslide unless you use ridiculously low criterias that make the term void.

Of course if you set your own criterias just to make sure the elections you like are called landslides, it's not surprising.

Right, just like you're setting your own conditions for the same reason.

I've called 1928 and 1912 (elections which I don't like, especially the former) landslides as well. And in 1912's case Wilson got much less than 50%. That doesn't mean it's not a landslide (especially in the context of a 3-way race).

As I've said earlier in this thread, you'd have a point about 1980 if Reagan won 51-49. But he didn't; he won 51%, which is a landslide in the context of a 3-way race.

[Californian Tony]

Sorry, I don't care whether or not there were third parties. 51% is just not a landslide-worthy percentage.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Depends if we're talking about a popular vote landslide or electoral vote landslide.

[WillK]

I mention this because I classify 1980 as a landslide (Reagan beat Carter by around 10%) but thanks to the third party candidate John Anderson, he didn't win 58% - he won 50.75%.

1980 was not a landslide unless you use ridiculously low criterias that make the term void.

Of course if you set your own criterias just to make sure the elections you like are called landslides, it's not surprising.

How do you not quantify 1980 as a landslide when Reagan won 44 states, 489 electoral votes, and a 10 point win in the popular vote?

Because of the significant number of states that he won with less than 50% of the vote in those states.   

[The Economist]

I can't agree with this assessment. For starters, Reagan won 25-28 states with 50% or at least .50% away from 50%. I would say in almost 30 states, he commanded at least 49% of the vote or over -- and given that Anderson garnered only 6% of the vote, that's quite a strong majority, if not an outright landslide.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

400 or more electoral votes, and 57% or more of the popular vote for a single candidate.

[Nichlemn]

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.

Any criteria which doesn't call 1920 a landslide must have something wrong with it. 1924 is a strong case too.

I'm not too fond of putting much weighting on EVs, because at that level they're just measuring the distribution of the vote, and I don't think uniform support makes a popular vote landslide much more impressive. It doesn't really give a sense of how easy it would for the trailing candidate to win, unlike other criteria. Other people seem to like it though, probably due to the pretty maps that result.

In any case, rather than have binary thresholds, I think weighting them together is better. 80+55+15 = 150, so an improvement on your criteria could be "If EV% plus PV% plus margin% exceeds 150, then the election is a landslide." That way, 1864, 1920, 1924 and 1980 are all additionally classified as landslides, which seems fair if it's a measure of what "seem like" landslides to most people. You could get fancier but I think this suffices.

Evaluating elections sometmes called landslides based on this method:

2008: 127.94
1996: 128.14
1988: 140.29
1984: 174.58
1980: 151.39
1972: 180.52
1964: 172.93
1956: 158.87
1952: 149.23
1944: 142.29
1940: 149.3
1936: 183.56
1932: 164.07
1928: 159.22
1924: 151.16
1920: 162.59
1912: 138.18
1904: 145.85
1872: 148.68
1864: 156.11
1832: 148.55

According to this method, 1936 was the biggest landslide, with 1972 in second. Borderline (within 2 points) landslides are 1980 and 1924, while borderline not-landslides are 1832, 1872, 1940 and 1952. 2008 and 1996 aren't even close, 2008 in fact gets the lowest score on this list.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

55% of the vote and 400+ EV

[TXMichael]

I say the congressional elections are irrelevant when talking about a landslide.  Congressional elections should only really be included when determining a realigning election, not a landslide.
400+ electoral votes and a 10 point margin with a popular vote over 50% is a decent standard to go by.  1984 was a landslide, but not necessarily a realigning election in the way 1932 was even though 1932 was also a landslide

[Senator Snowstalker]

55% of the vote

Beat your opponent 2:1 in the EC

[Liberalrocks]

At least 400 electoral votes and/or beat the opponent by 10 pts in the popular vote.

Winning 380-400 electoral votes and besting your opponent by over 10 points in the popular vote would still narrowly qualify as a landslide in my book.

1936 Landslide
1964 Landslide
1972 Landslide
1980 Landslide
1984 Landslide---but note the popular vote was closer then 1936 1964 and 1972 a point not often mentioned with Reagans "record win".
1988 Ass kicking but not a complete landslide due to the popular vote.
1992 Trouncing not a landslide
1996 Bigger Trouncing but not a complete landslide due to the popular vote.
2008 Ass kicking but clearly not a landslide.

[cope1989]

I mention this because I classify 1980 as a landslide (Reagan beat Carter by around 10%) but thanks to the third party candidate John Anderson, he didn't win 58% - he won 50.75%.

1980 was not a landslide unless you use ridiculously low criterias that make the term void.

Of course if you set your own criterias just to make sure the elections you like are called landslides, it's not surprising.

How do you not quantify 1980 as a landslide when Reagan won 44 states, 489 electoral votes, and a 10 point win in the popular vote?

Because of the significant number of states that he won with less than 50% of the vote in those states.  

That's a good point. Reagan won most southern states by very thin margins, around 1-2 points. If you shift Carter's popular vote from 40 to 42%, even keeping Reagan at 50, the electoral vote shifts significantly as Carter picks up a large hand full of southern states.

Even so, I'd still consider it a landslide. I think the qualifications for a landslide for a challenger should be a little looser.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

1912 - no, Teddy masked it, without him Taft might've even won, and at the very least it would've been much closer.
1916 - lol
1920 - yes, Cox won nothing outside the South.
1924 - yes, see above.
1928 - yes (even though it was a realignment)
1932 - yes
1936 - yes
1940 - maybe (FDR won pretty big, but it wasn't a really convincing PV win, and FDR was very established by then)
1944 - no (PV was close enough to stop this being a landslide)
1948 - no
1952 - yes
1956 - yes
1960 - lol
1964 - yes
1968 - no (although Nixon did well in the EV, the PV was tighter than a deer's penis)
1972 - yes
1976 - lol
1980 - yes (although Anderson masked the winning margin significantly)
1984 - yes
1988 - not quite (not that big of a PV win)
1992 - no (Perot masked this, would've been quite close without him)
1996 - not quite (biggish PV win but not such a big EV win)
2000 - lol
2004 - lol
2008 - no

[BritishDixie]

A lead of ten points. Getting 50% to 45% is not a landslide margin, but getting 45% to 35% is. Should carry over 30 states, preferably 35.