How can anyone say 1964 was the last landslide?

[A18]

I had seen someone post that on this message board before, but my history teacher just repeated it in class.

Now, it's hard to see how 1984 was not a landslide, seeing as Reagan almost carried all 50 states, and the one he didn't was lost by less than half of a percentage point, and was his opponent's home state. But I suppose you could disqualify it with a popular vote requirement of 60%.

But Nixon got 60%. Johnson didn't even get a point above that, and making 61% the number is just too arbitrary.

So what's so special about 1964?

[A18]

BTW: if 1984 was not a landslide, neither was 1932. FDR got a lower percentage of the vote and lost several states by solid margins.

[Erc]

Only in 1920, 1936, 1964, and 1972 has any candidate broken 60% of the popular vote [discounting, of course, any pre-1824 election].

You never really hear talk of 1920 being a huge landslide...

[Redefeatbush04]

If your teacher thinks that 1972 was not a landslide, your teacher is an idiot.

I consider the following to be recent electoral landslides:

1932
1936
1956
1964
1972
1984

[A18]

I'm pretty sure someone on this message board said it. Beet maybe, I dunno.

[Storebought]

Only in 1920, 1936, 1964, and 1972 has any candidate broken 60% of the popular vote [discounting, of course, any pre-1824 election].

You never really hear talk of 1920 being a huge landslide...

It's a good idea to discount the numbers from all 19th century elections. In fact, the only clear winners from 1824 onward were:

Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
U S Grant
William McKinley

All other elected presidents got in because their respective political machines manufacutured the most votes at the precinct level.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

landslides of the 20th centuryin my view:

1904
1920
1928
1932
1936
1956
1964
1972
1984

[A18]

Storebought, why are those people exceptions, and what changed after the 19th century to keep this from happening?

[George W. Bush]

landslides of the 20th centuryin my view:

1904
1920
1932
1936
1956
1964
1972
1984

If 1904 was a Landslide How was 1988 not? The Electoral Percentages were the same each year. Roosevelt got only 3% more popular vote than Bush too.

[Storebought]

Storebought, why are those people exceptions, and what changed after the 19th century to keep this from happening?

I think PB explained it earlier, but:

In the 19th century ballots were printed not by the secretaries of state but by the parties themselves at the precinct level. Each party printed ballots which left off the name of the opposition candidate and party entirely.  It was up to the voter to try to find the Democrat's ballot and the Whig's ballot. And that was perfectly legal.

When the ballots were counted, they weren't enumerated by "Democrat", "Whig", "Republican", etc. Rather, the person who received the "mostest votes the firstest" won. Ex. In 1832, in TN ballots were counted for "Jackson" and "Anti-Jackson." In 1836 the election was between Martin Van Buren and "Other." And so on.

Presidential elections did not take place on the same day throughout the country.

Not to mention the illegal methods of vote raising (buying votes with corn whiskey, sending ballots in a week after your opponents have already counted theirs, noncertificiation, etc), and you get some pretty funky presidential returns in the 1800s

*Jackson was an exception because his win was indisputable--the National Democrats existed in every state, so both Jackson and Clay had ballots. Jackson just had way, way more; he won with 56% of the vote, the largest majority of the 19th century.

Martin Van Buren ran against 3 candidates!

Grant used the Federal army to suppress the white southern vote in 1868; in 1872 he had the benefit to run against a certifiable flake in Horace Greeley.

William McKinley's win was legit because, by 1890, the election process had been reformed and elections became more modern and professional. He really did win more votes than W J Bryan.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm going more on popular vote, and margin of victory. 3 points makes a lot of difference since it's 3 points lost by the other candidate as well making a 6 point gap, and Parker did much worse than Dukakis even after that (more third parties). Roosevelt won by almost 20 points.

I forgot 1928 though, better edit that one in.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Storebought, why are those people exceptions, and what changed after the 19th century to keep this from happening?

I think PB explained it earlier, but:

In the 19th century ballots were printed not by the secretaries of state but by the parties themselves at the precinct level. Each party printed ballots which left off the name of the opposition candidate and party entirely.  It was up to the voter to try to find the Democrat's ballot and the Whig's ballot. And that was perfectly legal.

When the ballots were counted, they weren't enumerated by "Democrat", "Whig", "Republican", etc. Rather, the person who received the "mostest votes the firstest" won. Ex. In 1832, in TN ballots were counted for "Jackson" and "Anti-Jackson." In 1836 the election was between Martin Van Buren and "Other." And so on.

Presidential elections did not take place on the same day throughout the country.

Not to mention the illegal methods of vote raising (buying votes with corn whiskey, sending ballots in a week after your opponents have already counted theirs, noncertificiation, etc), and you get some pretty funky presidential returns in the 1800s

there was also no secret ballot in most places, so intimidation of voters was rather easy.

[??????????]

Storebought is correct on this.

[rbt48]

The topic reminds me of the ludicrous USA Today headlilne reporting the 1992 election.  It called Clinton's 43% popular vote plurality a "landslide."  It was their big headline, all across the top of the front page.  (It even beat out the latest NCAA football poll release.)  It was truly comical to anyone with much of a sense for politics in an historical contest. 

I suppose "comical" accurately describles much about the USA Today.

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, that's typical journalistic hyperbole...or just caring about the electoral map rather than the will of the people. Labour's 97 and 2001 wins, or the Tories' 80s wins for that matter, are usually described as landslides, but at none of these elections did one of the parties even come close to 50%.

As to the original thread question: Denial. Just blocking out all memory of the 1972 election ever taking place. And then arguing that 1984 was a win by less than 20 percentage points, a pretty traditional landslide criterion.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, that's typical journalistic hyperbole...or just caring about the electoral map rather than the will of the people. Labour's 97 and 2001 wins, or the Tories' 80s wins for that matter, are usually described as landslides, but at none of these elections did one of the parties even come close to 50%.

Elections in the U.K are more like U.S House elections (without the worse gerrymanders o/c... although some constituencies are gerrymandered...) and with more parties to choose from, than U.S Presidential elections though.
The last election where the winner got even slightly close to 50% was 1966... and the last time when any party actually did was 1935.

[A18]

Well, I don't remember who said it here. But whoever did, could you explain what you meant?

[Democratic Hawk]

I think we can safely say that 1972 and 1984 were landslides in terms fo both PV and EV

Dave