Historical election least likely to be called "close" *or* a "landslide"

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

True, but Reagan got less than 51% of the vote in 1980, which certainly would not have been a landslide in a two person election, and he only got 254 of his EV by winning a majority of the vote in the States in question.  (Reagan would still have won versus a combined Carter+Anderson, but not versus a combined everyone else.)  Judging by the swing/trend for 1980, a solid majority of the 1980 Anderson voters were 1984 Mondale voters.  With the exception of Utah, all of the States that actually swung Democratic in 1984 were ones that Anderson did better than average in.  (Were Mormons voting against Carter in 1980 because he was a Southern Baptist?)

[Antonio the Sixth]

The tipping point State, Colorado, was won by just over 5 points, so it was clearly not close and clearly not a landslide.

The only really dubious landslide case is 1980, because Reagan's PV margin wasn't that impressive, but the EC results were. All the other victories slightly below 1980 levels (see 1988, 1992, 1996, 2008) were NOT landslides in any meaningful way.

1980?? Reagan's PV margin was almost 10 points. That's pretty huge.

Nah, 10 points is good but not great. You are too focused on our modern hyper-partisan era, where everything above 5 seems outstanding.

[Blackacre]

The tipping point State, Colorado, was won by just over 5 points, so it was clearly not close and clearly not a landslide.

The only really dubious landslide case is 1980, because Reagan's PV margin wasn't that impressive, but the EC results were. All the other victories slightly below 1980 levels (see 1988, 1992, 1996, 2008) were NOT landslides in any meaningful way.

1980?? Reagan's PV margin was almost 10 points. That's pretty huge.

He got 50% of the PV IIRC. The margin was big because of a third party candidate. See 1992/6

[pbrower2a]

2012.

Barack Obama won 61.7% of the electoral vote in 2012. This is in between one election (McKinley in 1900) getting 65.35% of the electoral vote and another  (Truman in 1948) getting 57.1% of the electoral vote. The 2012 Presidential election is about as average in results as any Presidential election can be. A 4% split between the two major-Party nominees is about as average as it could be.

But since 1900 there has been only one 'average' election either popular votes or electoral votes, and that was in 2012. Enjoy it. It may be the only such election for a very long time because few Presidential elections approach the mean result.

Many thought that Truman would surely lose, and the Chicago Tribune had its infamous headline. It was not 'mere' wishful thinking as was so in 2012 when many on the Right were certain that President Obama could not win because he was 'so terrible that nobody could vote for him'. Anyone who followed the statewide polling knew that although the popular vote would be close, Mitt Romney had a very small random chance of winning without changing the dynamics of the election.     

[Undecided Voter in the Midwest]

I'd say 2012 qualifies as a "moderate" win, in that Obama's margin was comfortable but not overwhelming.

[SingingAnalyst]

1896, 2008.