How do you rank presidential election wins?

[ElectionsGuy]

I rank them like this:

Win of 0-2.4% = A close race
Win of 2.5-4.9% = A decisive race
Win of 5-9.9% = A blowout
Win of 10+% = A landslide

How do you rank them?

Note: Feel free to create more ranks and rank them a different way then I did.

Here is every election since 1960 with these ranks.

1960: A close race
1964: A landslide
1968: A close race
1972: A landslide
1976: A close race
1980: A blowout (almost landslide)
1984: A landslide
1988: A blowout
1992: A blowout
1996: A blowout
2000: A close race
2004: A close race (almost decisive)
2008: A blowout
2012: A decisive race

Here are the Margin of wins for reference:

1960: D+0.2%
1964: D+22.6%
1968: R+0.7%
1972: R+23.2%
1976: D+2.1%
1980: R+9.7%
1984: R+18.2%
1988: R+7.8%
1992: D+5.6%
1996: D+8.5%
2000: D+0.5%
2004: R+2.4%
2008: D+7.2%
2012: D+3.9%

[barfbag]

Combination:

margin of victory
exceeding expectations
nature of the times

[Fritz]

Electoral votes should also be part of the equation.

[barfbag]

Ranking the last 16 as if it were a football season. This is off the top of my head when it comes to popular vote.

1964
1972
1984
1956
1980
1952
1996
2008
1988
1992
2012
2004
1976
1968
1960
2000

[Gass3268]

I agree with what Waukesha County said, except I would put 2012 at a blowout. A 126 electoral vote win is nothing to sneeze at.   

[barfbag]

I agree with what Waukesha County said, except I would put 2012 at a blowout. A 126 electoral vote win is nothing to sneeze at.   

Anything less than 5 points is close. The same can be said for any time both candidates get more than 200 EV.

[ElectionsGuy]

I agree with what Waukesha County said, except I would put 2012 at a blowout. A 126 electoral vote win is nothing to sneeze at.   

I know, but in the case of 2012, the electoral college totally exaggerated Obama's win. So I prefer to go by popular vote.

[ElectionsGuy]

Electoral votes should also be part of the equation.

The problem is that the electoral college disproportionally represents the margin of winning. It almost always represents a bigger win in the electoral college than in the popular vote.

For example: In 1976, James Carter got 50.1% of the vote, but 55.2% of the electoral votes, while Gerald Ford got 48.0% of the vote, but 44.6% (should be 44.8% without the electoral error in Washington) of the electoral votes.

And generally the bigger the margin, the more over represented it is.

Example: In 1984, Ronald Reagan got 58.8% of the vote, but 97.6% of electoral votes, while Walter Mondale got 40.6% of the vote but 2.4% of electoral vote.

With this system, it would be easier to call 2012 a "blowout" or to call 1996 a "landslide".

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I generally base it on the electoral vote.  Here's my rankings, based on EV for the winning candidate:

270-320: A close race
320-400: A decisive race
400-438: A blowout
438-538: A landslide

When going by popular vote, I wouldn't really call it a landslide unless the winning candidate gets at least 60% of the vote.

This factors in both popular and electoral votes in ranking presidential elections from 1960 onward (in ascending order from the closest):

1. 2000
2. 1960
3. 1968
4. 2004
5. 1976
6. 2012
7. 2008
8. 1996
9. 1992
10. 1988
11. 1980
12. 1964
13. 1972
14. 1984

I agree with what Waukesha County said, except I would put 2012 at a blowout. A 126 electoral vote win is nothing to sneeze at.   

I know, but in the case of 2012, the electoral college totally exaggerated Obama's win. So I prefer to go by popular vote.

I agree with what Waukesha County said, except I would put 2012 at a blowout. A 126 electoral vote win is nothing to sneeze at.   

I know, but in the case of 2012, the electoral college totally exaggerated Obama's win. So I prefer to go by popular vote.

This.

[barfbag]

I generally base it on the electoral vote.  Here's my rankings, based on EV for the winning candidate:

270-320: A close race
320-400: A decisive race
400-438: A blowout
438-538: A landslide

When going by popular vote, I wouldn't really call it a landslide unless the winning candidate gets at least 60% of the vote.

This factors in both popular and electoral votes in ranking presidential elections from 1960 onward (in ascending order from the closest):

1. 2000
2. 1960
3. 1968
4. 2004
5. 1976
6. 2012
7. 2008
8. 1996
9. 1992
10. 1988
11. 1980
12. 1964
13. 1972
14. 1984

I agree with what Waukesha County said, except I would put 2012 at a blowout. A 126 electoral vote win is nothing to sneeze at.   

I know, but in the case of 2012, the electoral college totally exaggerated Obama's win. So I prefer to go by popular vote.

I agree with what Waukesha County said, except I would put 2012 at a blowout. A 126 electoral vote win is nothing to sneeze at.   

I know, but in the case of 2012, the electoral college totally exaggerated Obama's win. So I prefer to go by popular vote.

This.

The electoral college is meant to exaggerate wins.

[ElectionsGuy]

I generally base it on the electoral vote.  Here's my rankings, based on EV for the winning candidate:

270-320: A close race
320-400: A decisive race
400-438: A blowout
438-538: A landslide

When going by popular vote, I wouldn't really call it a landslide unless the winning candidate gets at least 60% of the vote.

This factors in both popular and electoral votes in ranking presidential elections from 1960 onward (in ascending order from the closest):

1. 2000
2. 1960
3. 1968
4. 2004
5. 1976
6. 2012
7. 2008
8. 1996
9. 1992
10. 1988
11. 1980
12. 1964
13. 1972
14. 1984

I agree with what Waukesha County said, except I would put 2012 at a blowout. A 126 electoral vote win is nothing to sneeze at.   

I know, but in the case of 2012, the electoral college totally exaggerated Obama's win. So I prefer to go by popular vote.

I agree with what Waukesha County said, except I would put 2012 at a blowout. A 126 electoral vote win is nothing to sneeze at.   

I know, but in the case of 2012, the electoral college totally exaggerated Obama's win. So I prefer to go by popular vote.

This.

The electoral college is meant to exaggerate wins.

Yes, that's why we can't combine popular vote and electoral vote to get a ranking. We would have to create two separate systems, one based on popular vote, and one based on electoral college. Because if we just have one system combining the two, they might not always agree with each other.

Ex: 2.5-4.9% win = "A decisive race", 320-400 EVs = a blowout. 2012 could be a decisive race or a blowout.

[NHI]

Top Five Elections In Terms of Popular Vote: Margin (Closest)
1. '60: 0.17%
2. '00: 0.51%
3. '68: 0.70%
4. '76: 2.06%
5. '04: 2.46%

(Biggest)
1.  '72: 23.15%
2.  '64: 22.58%
3.  '84: 18.21%
4.  '80:   9.74%
5.  '96:   8.51%

Top Five Elections in Terms of Electoral Vote: (Closest)

1. '00: 271-266
2. '04: 286-251
3. '76: 297-240
4. '60: 303-219
5. '64: 301-191

(Biggest)

1. '84: 525-13
2. '72: 520-11
3. '80: 489-49
4. '64: 486-52
5. '88: 426-111

Top Five Elections In Terms of Popular Vote: Percentage (Closest)
1. '60: 49-72%-49.55%
2. '04: 48.38%-47.87%
3. '68: 43.42%-42.72%
4. '76: 50.08%-48.02%
5. '04: 50.73%-48.27%

(Biggest)
1. '64: 61.05%-38.47%
2. '72: 60.67%-37.52%
3. '84: 58.77%-40.56%
4. '80: 50.75%-41.01%
5. '96: 49.23%-40.72%

[barfbag]

You guys love math and numbers way too much.

[DS0816]

I generally base it on the electoral vote.  Here's my rankings, based on EV for the winning candidate:

270-320: A close race
320-400: A decisive race
400-438: A blowout
438-538: A landslide

Concentrating on the electoral vote where the current maximum is 538:

#01: 270 to 299—Bare
#02: 300 to 324—Fair
#03: 325 to 349—Strong
#04: 350 to 399—Decisive
#05: 400 to 499—Landslide
#06: 500 to 538—Blowout

[barfbag]

I've combined popular votes and electoral votes for the last 16 and here's what I came up with.

1972
1964
1984
1956
1952
1980
1988
1996
2008
1992
2012
2004
1976
1960
2000
1968