Was 1992 a landslide? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 01:49:49 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? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
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 6237 times)
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

« 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
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

« Reply #1 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
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

« Reply #2 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
Pages: [1]  
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 0.023 seconds with 15 queries.