No way.
1992 is even arguably a close election (Bush could have won with a mere 4.65% popular vote shift).
In that case, couldn't you say 2008 was arguably a close election? The results were very similar.
Neither 1992 nor 2008 were "arguably close," but they weren't landslides either. I agree with whoever above used the phrase "decisive."
It all depends what criterion you retain to qualify an election as "close", "normal" or "landslide".
- Popular vote margin ? Seems sound, but there could be case when the PV is decise in favor of one candidate but the electoral college is close.
- Electoral college breakdown ? Very bad idea, considering how very different PVs can produce similar ECs and inversely. Just compare 1964 and 1984...
- Finally, there is a third option. You rank each State from "most rep" to "most dem" and you find the State that could flip the election to one or another candidate. I personally call it "key State". In some election, the key State is rather evident to determine, like FL in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Some times instead, people can't find it that easily : did you know Iowa, Washington and Illinois were the key states in respectively 1932, 1964 and 1980 ? Then, have a look at the popular vote margin in the State. That number is the popular vote margin that the losing candidate would need to gain in order to win the election.
You say 1992 and 2008 are similar, and they are (somewhat) PV-wise and EV-wise. But that's not all. If you look at the key State, you find two very different realities : Tennessee, which would have given Bush a victory, went to Cinton by only 4.65 points. Colorado, which would make the Electoral College tied if it went to McCain, was won by Obama with 8.95 points. Thus,
it is arguable that Obama's victory was twice as strong as Clinton. Of course, that's only one criterion, and other ones can be used as well. But this helps realizing that things that look similar aren't necessarily so.
Poll
