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

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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).

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

Well, let's agree to disagree.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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% ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

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