Was 1992 a landslide?

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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?