Was 1988 a landslide?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I vote no. Bush I didn't even pass 53.5%. Hardly landslide numbers.

Plus if you use the argument frequently used by Reaganfan and Philip that the land area of counties won is more important than number of votes, Dukakis did better than Kerry and Gore.

[A18]

Where did I use that argument?

No, it was not a landslide. Just a decisive win.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

you said once to rebuke a population proportional map "if population was even remotely relevant this might actually mean something"

[A18]

It's irrelevant when you're trying to show how much of the country is GOP territory vs. how much is Dem territory.

When you're trying to determine how many Bush voters vs. Kerry voters there are, it's relevant.

[Beet]

Landslide is a relative term. I'd always thought of 1988 as a landslide, if only because Dukakis lost Michigan by 8 points (on the other hand, he got 43% in Texas).

[dazzleman]

I think 1988 was a near landslide.

Electorally, greater than 400 electoral votes is often the benchmark for a landslide, and Bush achieved that.

But with the popular vote, a little under 54% doesn't really qualify for a landslide.  I think it would have to be closer to 60% to be a true landslide.

It was, however, a broad electoral victory, of the kind that really has not been seen since.

[Kodratos]

An electoral landslide, not a landslide by PV(although still a pretty damn good victory).

[nclib]

The country was less polarized in 1988, so Bush I was able to win the electoral vote 426-111 with only a 7.72% popular vote margin.

If a 7.72% had occurred in 2004 with each state swinging uniformally, Bush II would have only won (electorally) 316-222.

[Bugs]

1988 was the 7th biggest electoral win since (not including) FDR. Just better than Clinton's two elections and just lower than Eisenhower's two. Similar for the popular vote.  A sound victory that does'nt compare to Reagan or Nixon in 1972.

[phk]

He was efficient at the distribution of the eV, but the pV wasn't landslide status.

[Hitchabrut]

I'd call it a "solid victory."

[dca5347]

NO !

[Gustaf]

Nope, not enough PV-margin.

[PBrunsel]

No, but it was a semi-landlside such as 1952.

[Dr. Cynic]

Almost. Had Dukakis lost say.... Maryland, it would have been a landslide.

[A18]

Almost. Had Dukakis lost say.... Maryland, it would have been a landslide.

Actually, Dukakis did lose Maryland

[Dr. Cynic]

Sorry, I was thinking of Iowa. My bad.

[True Democrat]

Sorry, I was thinking of Iowa. My bad.

Although I agree 1988 wasn't a landslide, if would have been if it hadn't been for the farm crisis.  This is why he won Iowa.

[dazzleman]

Dukakis won only ten states, so electorally 1988 was pretty well a landslide.

But the popular votes were spread around the country in a way that is unimaginable in today's political environment.  Bush narrowly lost New York, and won Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, California, and Illinois.

But Bush won only 53-54% of the popular vote, which today would produce only a narrow electoral win.  I would say that 1988 all in all was a solid win but not a landslide.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A swing of 475,000 votes and Dukakis would have won the electoral college. Not a landslide at all.

[ATFFL]

A swing of 475,000 votes and Dukakis would have won the electoral college. Not a landslide at all.

Please explain how that could have happened.

[minionofmidas]

I'm too lazy to do the maths myself again, but I remember being slightly angered at this site's what-if scenario for 92, and doing ones for 88 and 80.
It takes 300,000 votes in all the right places to (theoretically) manufacture a Bush win, about twice as many to manufacture a Carter win, somewhere in between to manufacture a Dukakis win.
Obviously, it wouldn't have happened that way, and the public outcry might've been large enough to scrap the EC if it had.

[DaleC76]

A swing of 475,000 votes and Dukakis would have won the electoral college. Not a landslide at all.

Please explain how that could have happened.

270-268

Someone check me, but I think if you flip these states, you could do it:

CA - 176,343
CT - 36,829
CO -  53,363
IL - 47,500
MD - 24,932
MO - 41,668
MI -  144,852
NM -  12,923
PA - 52,572

For a total of 414,639.  This was my first try.  There may be a better one.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well most agree with me.

I think people who do think of it as a landslide have a tendency to just because Bush won California. That doesn't take into account that demographics in California were rather different then and he wouldn't be able to win it today.

[ATFFL]

1988 was an electoral landslide, but not a popular vote landslide. 

Half a loaf of landslide, if you will.