How is "landslide" defined as far as presidential elections are concerned?

[Poiuyt]

[enid602]

1. Victory

A landslide victory for republicans is one where they lose the popular vote by less than 5%.

[Captain Zero]

2. Ha. So true

nt

[NCDem47]

8. We have a mandate!!

Meanwhile, a Democrat could win 50 states and the MSM and Republicans would say, “it’s time for partisanship.”

[Poeraria]

3. Only After the Election.

Dont let up!!!!!

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. I thought the rule of thumb was a margin of 10pts or more, or 400+ EV's. Nt

[A HERETIC I AM]

5. Or the margin of error PLUS 10 percent

[lastlib]

6. Eye of the beholder....

Drumpf thinks he won a landslide in 2016......
I'd say if there are more than 150 EVs difference, or a 60-40% split in popular vote, it's a landslide. It's arbitrary, but not out of the bounds of reason. YMMV.

[beachbumbob]

7. landslide? we have good chance to see a 10-15% margin and

400Evs

[Silent3]

9. Given that it's 2020, I suspect actual sliding of land will be involved

There will be devastating earthquakes, followed by several states left floating adrift in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

[Le Roi de Pot]

10. 10% or greater popular vote

[Drunken Irishman]

11. Interesting question. I think the term has evolved over the decades.

For a long, long time, it was not terribly unusual for one candidate to get upwards of 80% of the EV and 10+% of the popular vote. In fact, it happened a lot up until 2000.

Clinton was the last candidate to win 70+% of the EC (in 1996). Obama has come the closest at 67.8% in 2008. But it's not something we've seen in a long time.

We also haven't had a candidate win by 10+ since Reagan in 1984 or win 400+ EV since Bush in 1988.

I'd say a landslide is 10+ in the popular vote and or 400+ EV.

[Marius25]

12. I would say anything close to or over 400 EVs is a landslide.

We will never get the Reagan/Nixon level landslides where they win almost every state in the country. We're too divided for that.

[gopiscrap]

13. I would say 55% plus one of the vote and or 400 or more electoral votes

[jpljr77]

14. Who cares? Mandates are a thing of the past. If Generalissimo Manhattan Boy can govern like a

dictator with 46.1% of the vote, then margins don't matter, only victories.

That's why it makes me sweat to see the Biden campaign talk about Texas and Georgia and Iowa. At this exact point in 2016, the Clinton campaign was talking about expanding the map. DON'T DO IT. Focus on PA, MI, WI, NC, AZ and FL. Win the damn electoral college.

[Statistical]

15. Traditionally it has meant winning by 10% or more.

In large wins the EC will have a compounding effect. Winning by 10% of more means winning 70%+ of the electoral votes making for a very one sided map.

However in recent years it has largely lost any meaning when spoken by politicians who will call a win by a single vote a landslide or mandate or a mandated landslide or a landslide of mandates.

[Polybius]

16. 400 Electoral Votes and above

At least that's how I define it. Landslide has been too loosely used IMO.