Do you consider 1952 a landslide?

[MIKESOWELL]

  First, let me say that I do indeed consider 1952 a landslide. My criteria for one is a ten point spread in the popular vote, and an overwhelming majority of the Electoral College, at least 70 percent in my opinion. There are some who do not include Ike's first win as a landslide. My question is to those who do not, why is this?

[Podgy the Bear]

I think that because the election was thought to be closer than the final results showed.  And it was fairly close--with Eisenhower running about 3-7 points ahead in the polls.    But after his "I will go to Korea" speech on October 24, his margin rose significantly, and the election was not really in doubt after that.   And I would think that there were more state polls, the eventual outcome would have been more clear.  Eisenhower was ahead in states like New York, Pennsylvania, and throughout the Midwest and West. Stevenson was competitive only in the South.

But I do think it was a landslide for Eisenhower: a 10+ popular vote win, well over 400 electoral votes, and flipping both the House and Senate to the Republicans.

[twenty42]

I don't know who wouldn't consider 1952 a landslide...Eisenhower won by 11 points and got 442 EV's. On top of that, the nation as a whole swung 15.4 points Republican. I mean it wasn't a 1972/1984-style avalanche, but there was nothing close or competitive about 1952.

[Podgy the Bear]

But to consider the amazing electoral power of John F. Kennedy--despite the big Republican margins in 1952, this was the year that JFK took a Senate seat for the Democrats by defeating Henry Cabot Lodge (and Eisenhower won Massachusetts by over 200,000 votes and 9 points).

[Skill and Chance]

Yes.  Landslide = double digit PV win.

[muon2]

Yes.  Landslide = double digit PV win.

This is the traditional metric. It's just that we haven't seen many mere 10 point landslides in the last few cycles. Here's a chart I posted in 2009 showing the total electoral votes for the Republican candidate compared to the fractional difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates (percent difference divided by 100). The distribution shows a shift in the shape at +10% and -10%, which makes it a reasonable benchmark for landslides.

[Senator Incitatus]

Yes – my criteria is that the tipping point state is decided by greater than 8-10%. In 1952, it was Michigan, which Eisenhower won by 11%.

[ChelseaT]

Yes – my criteria is that the tipping point state is decided by greater than 8-10%. In 1952, it was Michigan, which Eisenhower won by 11%.

[President Johnson]

Yes, even back then. It's similar to FDR's reelection in 1940 both in electoral votes and the popular vote.

[morgankingsley]

I thought this said 1992 and my first thought was "perot didn't get THAT much of the vote"

[pbrower2a]

Yes – my criteria is that the tipping point state is decided by greater than 8-10%. In 1952, it was Michigan, which Eisenhower won by 11%.

That makes 2008 a landslide, with Obama winning Iowa by 9.54%. Winning states that don't usually go for one's Party (Indiana and Virginia had not voted for a Democratic nominee since 1948 except for the LBJ blow-out of Goldwater) often indicates a landslide.

I look at Eisenhower winning Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island, states that Republicans had not won since at least 1928 and have never won together since 1956... and Eisenhower winning Arizona, Utah, and Virginia and making them reliable R states for a long time. 

The difference is that Obama won with Reagan '84-like margins in nearly half the states and losing with Mondale '84-like margins in slightly fewer.   

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Yes – my criteria is that the tipping point state is decided by greater than 8-10%. In 1952, it was Michigan, which Eisenhower won by 11%.

That makes 2008 a landslide, with Obama winning Iowa by 9.54%. Winning states that don't usually go for one's Party (Indiana and Virginia had not voted for a Democratic nominee since 1948 except for the LBJ blow-out of Goldwater) often indicates a landslide.

I look at Eisenhower winning Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island, states that Republicans had not won since at least 1928 and have never won together since 1956... and Eisenhower winning Arizona, Utah, and Virginia and making them reliable R states for a long time. 

The difference is that Obama won with Reagan '84-like margins in nearly half the states and losing with Mondale '84-like margins in slightly fewer.   

1996 and 2008 were solid ass kickings, not landslides. Obama got shut out by 1972 McGovernesque margins in vast swathes of the country. 400+ EV's is also another good benchmark for a true landslide. If Bill Clinton had performed on election day in 1992 or 1996 as he had done in the polls, he would have won by a 10-15% margin. He would have swept the South and done much better in the plains and interior west.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It was a landslide because it made significant inroads into the Solid South.