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

[Thomas D]

In my opinion you have to meet 5 of these 6 standards:

1.Over 50% of the popular vote.

2. Over 358 Electoral votes. (358.8 is 2/3 of 538)

3. Won by at least 8 points.

4. Party pick up of 20 house seats

5. Party pick up of 5 Senate seats.

6. Winning at least one state in 10 of these 11 regions. (Regions from 538.com)

[Thomas D]

In regards to 1972 & 1984, If a candidate wins almost 60% of the popular vote and can't pick up 20 house seats then I think it's fair to ask if that's really a landslide. I know Nixon and Reagan won 49 states those years, But the lack of any coattails at all diminishes their accomplishments in those elections. In the 1982 Midterms Reagan lost 21 house seats. He should have been able to win all of those back and more in 1984. 1972 and 1984 were very decisive elections. But in my opinion they were not landslides. But I do think that 1980 was a landslide since in that election Reagan won big and picked up 34 house seats and 12 Senate seats.

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)

[Thomas D]

Why?

Neither Nixon nor Reagan were running for Congress in those years. I'm not sure the Congressional numbers are relevant to whether or not Nixon and Reagan achieved a landslide presidential election result.

But it's my opinion that it does matter. I know a lot of people would say otherwise. I think landslide should mean "an Election that transformed the nation." And 72 and 84 didn't

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.

[Thomas D]

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.

[Thomas D]

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

I think 2000 could have been a realiging election. But with the Jeffords party switch and 9/11 we'll never know how 2000-2002 would have turned out otherwise. 1992 was, even if it was short lived and Clinton only got 43% of the vote.

[Thomas D]

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

Well, let's agree to disagree.

Agreed.