Was 1992 a landslide?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:33:01 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Was 1992 a landslide?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Was 1992 a landslide?
#1
yes
 
#2
no
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 60

Author Topic: Was 1992 a landslide?  (Read 6150 times)
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,117
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 16, 2007, 08:28:39 AM »

Because of the electoral college landslide, I vote yes, the popular vote is another matter and Perot's ability to get so many votes added to the confusion.
The real point of this thread is that every election seems to be either a landslide or very close. Has anyone else ever noticed that?
I took a quick look through history as far back as the first election.

1888 is probably the most interesting in one sense. One could say that it was both very close *and* a landslide, the popular vote was close but the electoral vote was not. Plus, the loser of the popular vote won the election.
Logged
Adlai Stevenson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,403
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2007, 08:41:19 AM »

The last landslide election was 1984.  1988 and 1996 were comfortable wins.  2000 and 2004 were close elections.  1992 was basically an abberation. 
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2007, 12:17:44 PM »

I voted yes. It may not have been a landslide per se, but it basically was.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2007, 05:33:16 PM »

I voted yes. It may not have been a landslide per se, but it basically was.

Huh?

While it's correct that most elections are land-slides or close elections I'd say both 1988 and 1992  fall in-between. 1980 does too and 1996 would, if it wasn't for the fact that Clinton's margin shrunk thanks to voter apathy.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2007, 06:14:11 PM »

Generally speaking, I consider a landslide more in terms of its sustainability than its raw numbers.  A "landslide" to me, brings to mind the image of a truly unstoppable force that the other candidate is completely helpless to stop.  I therefore consider a landslide to be any election where you can induce a 7.5% swing to the second place candidate and not change the outcome of the election.

In the 20th century, that would be the following elections:

1904
1912
1920
1924
1932
1936
1964
1972
1984

The choice of 7.5% is, admittedly arbitrary, but it works pretty well in including anything I do consider a landslide and in weeding out anything I don't.  I tried 5%, but this let in too many (such as 1908, which didn't really feel like a landslide for me), and 10%, but this weeded out too many (such as 1984, which definitely was a landslide).
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2007, 10:16:07 PM »

I don't coonsider '88, '92, or '96 to be landslides.  Normally, when the popular vote margin is 5-10% or so, I'd call it an "average margin of victory" rather than a landslide.  If those count as landslides, then most elections are landslides.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,922


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2007, 12:18:37 AM »

Clinton won by 6% and 198 EVs. I would call that a border-line landslide.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2007, 12:23:36 PM »

Generally speaking, I consider a landslide more in terms of its sustainability than its raw numbers.  A "landslide" to me, brings to mind the image of a truly unstoppable force that the other candidate is completely helpless to stop.  I therefore consider a landslide to be any election where you can induce a 7.5% swing to the second place candidate and not change the outcome of the election.

In the 20th century, that would be the following elections:

1904
1912
1920
1924
1932
1936
1964
1972
1984

The choice of 7.5% is, admittedly arbitrary, but it works pretty well in including anything I do consider a landslide and in weeding out anything I don't.  I tried 5%, but this let in too many (such as 1908, which didn't really feel like a landslide for me), and 10%, but this weeded out too many (such as 1984, which definitely was a landslide).

That looks like an excellent definition to me. In other words, it'd be a 15% margin?
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2007, 01:06:54 PM »

Generally speaking, I consider a landslide more in terms of its sustainability than its raw numbers.  A "landslide" to me, brings to mind the image of a truly unstoppable force that the other candidate is completely helpless to stop.  I therefore consider a landslide to be any election where you can induce a 7.5% swing to the second place candidate and not change the outcome of the election.

In the 20th century, that would be the following elections:

1904
1912
1920
1924
1932
1936
1964
1972
1984

The choice of 7.5% is, admittedly arbitrary, but it works pretty well in including anything I do consider a landslide and in weeding out anything I don't.  I tried 5%, but this let in too many (such as 1908, which didn't really feel like a landslide for me), and 10%, but this weeded out too many (such as 1984, which definitely was a landslide).

That looks like an excellent definition to me. In other words, it'd be a 15% margin?

Generally speaking that would be case, but the popular vote is largely actually irrelevant.  What matters in the above definition is the percentages in the states won by the victor - it's a landslide if the victor hangs on to enough states to win even after 7.5% is transferred from the winner to the loser.
Logged
Reignman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,236


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2007, 04:32:21 PM »

Considering Bush's pop. vote total, then yes.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2007, 04:37:29 PM »

I just can't see a popular vote total in the low 40s percent being a landslide.
Logged
Reignman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,236


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2007, 06:09:24 PM »

I just can't see a popular vote total in the low 40s percent being a landslide.

Think about if Perot wasn't in the race.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2007, 06:12:53 PM »

I just can't see a popular vote total in the low 40s percent being a landslide.

Think about if Perot wasn't in the race.

A lot of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush.
Logged
Boris
boris78
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,098
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2007, 06:51:35 PM »
« Edited: March 19, 2007, 07:11:06 PM by Boris »

I just can't see a popular vote total in the low 40s percent being a landslide.

Think about if Perot wasn't in the race.

A lot of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush.

It depends from what part of the country. Here is an excerpt from a Time Magazine article from October 12, 1992, shortly after Perot re-entered the race:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things, but I think that Perot gained at Clinton's expense in the heavily Democratic areas of the nation - i.e. the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and the West Coast. Perot took away votes from Bush in the south and in the Midwest, which is how Clinton could come within five points of taking Kansas.

I hypothesize that had Perot stayed out of the race, Clinton would have won a larger popular vote victory but his margin would have diminished in the electoral college.

Of course, if you're going to judge whether or not an election is a "landslide," you should probably use the popular vote rather than electoral vote as a measuring stick. The latter can be disingenuous; see 1968.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2007, 08:38:30 PM »

Not overly... It was more of a "Comfortable Electoral Win".
Logged
Robespierre's Jaw
Senator Conor Flynn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,129
Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2007, 10:14:38 PM »

Electorally speaking the 1992 Presidential Election was a landslide. But the results in the popular vote were quite close considering Clinton got 43% Bush got 37% and Perot got 19%. And Perot was taking alot of votes from President Bush. But, also an interesting fact is that even when Clinton was the Dem's nominee, opinion polls in April or May suggested that Perot was leading in the three-man race. With Bush finishing 2nd and Clinton taking 3rd. And then the rest is history.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,811
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2007, 09:34:33 AM »

I think the states that voted for Clinton outside of the north and boarder states voted on change just like they did during the Reagan administration when he won alot of the northern states. I don't think it was based on philosophy, because the states went back to its philosophy in 2000 and 2004. I think if it hadn't been for Ross Perot, Clinton would of won but with a smaller number of electoral votes.
Logged
Republican06
Rookie
**
Posts: 18
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2007, 02:49:15 PM »

No 1992 was not a landslide by any mean. The Clinton Gore Ticket won 365 Electoral votes to the Bush Quayle 173 Electoral votes. That is very signifigant and probaly will never happen again. The Bush Cheney ticket won 271 and 286 Electoral votes in 2000 and 2004. It is not a landslide because the Bush Quayle ticket recieved 38% of the vote to Ross Perot's 19% of the vote. More people voted against President Bill Clinton than for him in 92 and 96.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2007, 05:47:35 PM »

I think the states that voted for Clinton outside of the north and boarder states voted on change just like they did during the Reagan administration when he won alot of the northern states. I don't think it was based on philosophy, because the states went back to its philosophy in 2000 and 2004. I think if it hadn't been for Ross Perot, Clinton would of won but with a smaller number of electoral votes.

Clinton would have likely lost Kentucky, Nevada, Colorado, Georgia and Montana without Perot.
Logged
TomC
TCash101
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,973


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2007, 09:40:26 PM »

Some Perot voters would not have voted for Clinton and would have for Bush, but Perot's being in the race clearly helped Clinton. Perot spent a good year bashing the status quo and George HW Bush. He barely bashed Clinton. Perot got out of the race in July 1992 saying basically that it looked like the Dems have it together this year. He got back in in a few months saying the Republicans threatened to ruin his daughter's wedding if he didn't drop out before.

His whole spiel absolutely set the tone for a change candidate to beat a status quo candidate. Gov. Clinton absolutely benefitted from that tone.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2007, 09:31:08 AM »

Would be a long shot, but always a possibility:



Clinton: 42.72% (44,909,806)
Bush: 37.86% (39,795,133)
Perot: 18.78% (19,743,821)

Clinton: 266 EV
Bush: 272 EV
Perot: 0 EV

If Bush received # extra votes...

GA - 13,715
KY - 47,927
LA - 82,586
NV - 13,321
MT - 10,301
NM - 48,794
HI - 42,489
OH - 90,633
NJ - 79,342
CT - 104,006
RI - 81,699
NH - 6,557
DE - 23,742
VT - 45,471

Total extra: 690,583

What-if scenario; nothing like this could have really happened. Wink
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,811
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2007, 11:27:51 AM »

Logged
skybridge
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,919
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2007, 02:41:42 AM »

It was a comfortable electoral win, but Clinton only won a plurality in his homestate and DC. Hardly a landslide.
Logged
auburntiger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,233
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.61, S: 0.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2007, 02:05:13 AM »

It was a comfortable electoral win, but Clinton only won a plurality in his homestate and DC. Hardly a landslide.

Actually, AR did give him a majority both times (the only state to do so)
Logged
AkSaber
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,315
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2007, 03:37:34 AM »

No, I don't think it was. It's kinda hard to have a landslide in a 3-man race.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 13 queries.