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.

[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%.

[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.

[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.

[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.