What would constitute a "landslide"?

[techs]

I am wondering what people would consider a 'landslide' in this years Presidential election?

A little background info:

2004 Bush-286 Kerry-252 Bush 50.7 percent of the vote Kerry 48.3
2000 Bush-271 Gore-267 Bush 47.9 percent of the vote Gore 48.4
1996 Clinton-379 Dole-159 Clinton 49.24 percent of the vote Dole 40.71 percent.


When Bush won in 2004 he claimed his victory was large enough to give him "political capital".

So, in 2008, what would you consider to be a landslide for either candidate?
And just to make it interesting, what margin of victory would you label "clear cut' meaning that any election irregularities are overwhelmed by the margin of victory?

 

[ProfJohn]

He takes Fl, VA, NC and OH it would be a 'big' win, but not a landslide.

Don't think he can get to landslide. Perhaps add on Indiana and a few more red states and push him over 400 electoral votes.
Remember Reagan won 489 electoral votes in 1980 with an almost 10% popular vote victory. And Bush 41 won 426 with an 8 point victory.

 

[nageov3t]

if he sweeps 4+ of the "swing" states OR if democrats have a filibuster-proof margin in the senate

 

[First]

375 is generally considered a landslide, which is looking more and more likely by the day.

 

[ProfJohn]

The Senate thing is really scary.

Some Republicans are starting to suggest that the RNC pull support from McCain and put it into the tighter Senate races to keep the Dems away from 60.

I see it as a catch-22. If the Dems get to 60 they will most likely go totally wild and get kicked out in 2 years. But if we keep them from 60 we can keep them at least a little honest. So what is better for the Republicans and our long term goals. Letting the Dems go wild for 2 years in hope of getting a 1994 style victory in 2010, or keeping them honest and taking longer to get control of congress back.

 

[Tab]

Probably anything more than 5% of the popular vote, that's what my polisci friends say...

 

[bamacre]

A win is a win.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Evan
375 is generally considered a landslide, which is looking more and more likely by the day.

Says who??

Going back to FDR's first victory we have had 11 Presidents rack up 400+ electoral votes and only 8 get less than 400. 12 of the last 19 have gotten 379 or more electoral votes.

The AVERAGE victory post Alaska and Hawaii is 387!!!!
So if Obama gets 375 he ends up below the average, not a landslide.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Evan
375 is generally considered a landslide, which is looking more and more likely by the day.

Says who??

Going back to FDR's first victory we have had 11 Presidents rack up 400+ electoral votes and only 8 get less than 400. 12 of the last 19 have gotten 379 or more electoral votes.

The AVERAGE victory post Alaska and Hawaii is 387!!!!
So if Obama gets 375 he ends up below the average, not a landslide.

Who decided that the "average" wasn't a landslide?

 

[ProfJohn]

I hope you aren't an engineer for anything important. :roll:

As I said, anything 400+ would be a landslide.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I hope you aren't an engineer for anything important. :roll:

As I said, anything 400+ would be a landslide.

Personal attacks aside (to create a diversion), who decides that 400+ is a landslide?

A landslide is a convincing win and if the "average" is convincing, why would it not be a landslide?

Definition from dictionary.com:

to win an election by an overwhelming majority.

If (IFFFFF) Obama were to win 66.6% vs McCain's 33.4%, that would be doubling up on McCain. That would be below 400 but would be an overwhelming majority.

Just because there is a high average does not mean that the average isn't in landslide territory.

 

[nageov3t]

what's the average if you factor out the truly undisputed landslide elections, like Nixon's and Reagan's?

 

[Farang]

360.. he would have twice McCain's electoral votes. This talk of averages is not relevant because many of those races were against an incumbent, and that creates a totally different dynamic.

 

[miketheidiot]

if obama wins 3 out of:

ND, WV, NC, georgia, MT, IN

because if it were a close election, these states would not be in play.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Evan
375 is generally considered a landslide, which is looking more and more likely by the day.

Says who??

People who study history. Your borked history regurgitation aside, 375 (or within a few votes of that total) is a shellacking by any sensible standard. As Engineer said, the average margin historically has been a landslide, with the last two elections being particularly exceptional. It surprises no one here you don't get this, and you've been getting things wrong since you started posting here, including the surge and this election. Go figure.

 

[umbrella39]

Landslide if Obama takes a very red state like Indiana and turns it blue for the first time in decades.

 

[Lemon law]

As John F. Kennedy famously remarked about his wealthy daddy, my daddy said he would pay for a win, and not a dime more for a landslide. But I think Obama will poll something 55% of the popular and at least 330 or so in the electoral college.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

It really depends on how things break in the final week. If we hear more about the disarray in the McCain camp it may turn off the base from even bothering to vote Obama may move towards a historic landslide. A Democrat winning states not even Clinton could.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The Senate thing is really scary.

Some Republicans are starting to suggest that the RNC pull support from McCain and put it into the tighter Senate races to keep the Dems away from 60.

I see it as a catch-22. If the Dems get to 60 they will most likely go totally wild and get kicked out in 2 years. But if we keep them from 60 we can keep them at least a little honest. So what is better for the Republicans and our long term goals. Letting the Dems go wild for 2 years in hope of getting a 1994 style victory in 2010, or keeping them honest and taking longer to get control of congress back.

honest? that is a trait you associate with Republicans? wow.

 

[seemingly random]

This thread is interesting in that it reveals the repug fear that obama might win by more than a simple majority of electoral votes - that he wins enough to be seen as an overwhelming mandate by voters. Kinda of fun to watch.

landslide - a great majority of votes for one side

it's very subjective, so most peoples' opinion will be correct.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
This thread is interesting in that it reveals the repug fear that obama might win by more than a simple majority of electoral votes - that he wins enough to be seen as an overwhelming mandate by voters. Kinda of fun to watch.

landslide - a great majority of votes for one side

it's very subjective, so most peoples' opinion will be correct.

+15% is correct.

 

[shira]

The electoral vote is an artificial construct. It's possible to construct scenarios in which one candidate gets more than 400 electoral votes while pulling less than 40% of the popular vote (versus the losing candidate's more than 60%). Yet people in this thread would claim that the winner in such scenarios has achieved a landslide.

Really, a "landslide" exists only if a win in the electoral college (regardless of size) is combined with a popular-vote margin of at least 9 or 10%.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not looking for a landslide. I'm looking for a tidal wave.

 

[fskimospy]

Landslide is a subjective term, but the generally accepted definition is a 10%+ margin of victory. That is unlikely in this election, or really any other presidential election for the foreseeable future.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Landslide is a subjective term, but the generally accepted definition is a 10%+ margin of victory. That is unlikely in this election, or really any other presidential election for the foreseeable future.

Three big Electoral vote states would make the 10% criteria.