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:
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.
Poll
