I know someone who claimed that the 2012 presidential election was a “landslide,” which IMHO is a stretch - the difference in the popular vote was a margin of about 5%.
In your own definition, what constitutes a “landslide?” I would propose either a margin of 10% or greater in the popular vote, **or **a margin of 200 or more votes in the Electoral College (i.e., winning 369-169 in the EV tally.)
2008 had a 7% difference in the vote (53% vs 46%), the EV count was 365 to 173. You can’t use EV to determine a landslide IMO, because even a 3% difference in the popular vote will result in a somewhat lopsided EV count.
A 10% margin isn’t really possible in today’s political climate in my view unless one of the candidate openly comes out as a demon. In today’s climate, I’d wager 5% counts as a landslide. The 7% difference in 2008 resulted in a lot of federal, state and local politicians riding Obama’s tailcoats.
Relative landslides are simply elections that are a lot more definitive. If we go by the last four elections, 2012 was 2nd in terms of margin, so some people might perceive a landslide.
But I think where the term actually matters is where it denotes a mandate, and I don’t think you truly get there without a massive victory, like 40 states or 10% winning margin. And I do think it’s possible. The issue is simply that in the last few elections there hasn’t been much to vote FOR, which causes people to just default to their asshole, as opposed to the other side’s asshole. 2008 was an exception, which is why turnout was so high. And according to Nate Silver, John McCain actually outperformed given the fundamentals, which speaks to his quality as a candidate as well. Obama probably would have won a real landslide against Romney.
A true landslide is impossible in a system with two sane, intelligent parties. Long before it gets to that point, the disadvantaged party will see the writing on the wall and adjust their platform to win back some votes.
It’s one race. A landslide is certainly possible and may occur this year. The polls show that Clinton/Trump would end in a landslide Clinton victory, and Kasich/Clinton would end up in a landslide Kasich victory.
Right now Kasich is benefitting from the same thing that Sanders is: his opponents have made no concerted effort to tear him down as a candidate. It’s not inconceivable Kasich could emerge from a contested convention as the nominee (at least he doesn’t think it is), in which case you’d see those numbers start to tighten almost immediately.
It seems semi-normal for successful Presidents to get north of 15 or even 20 point margins when seeking a second term. Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, Eisenhower and FDR all did so.
That trend seemed to have ended with Clinton. He, GWB and Obama were all returned with less than 10 point margins. I suspect that’s just a general increase in partisan voting at the Presidential level. Less people are willing to accept the other parties guy is doing an all right job.
Pretty much this. That is one of the big appeal of democratic governments, when politicians start doing things truly destructive the people start voting for someone else. It is a pressure release valve.
Disagree. The economy plus incumbency can engineer an electoral landslide. Reagan won 49 out of 50 states and 58.8 - 40.6% of the vote over Mondale for example. And Mondale was a former Vice President who offended nobody. The odd part is that after controlling for those 2 factors, Mondale didn’t do too badly. But the party elders didn’t see things that way and responded by rethinking the fundamentals of the Democratic coalition. A more moderate Bill Clinton would eventually be elected President.
adaher -
Mandates can happen with or without a landslide and visa versa. (Not that you necessarily disagree.)
I doubt whether Kasich would win in a landslide over Hillary absent a recession. I can see him defeating her though. Though he also has his vulnerabilities as residents of Ohio can attest.
The term “mandate” in these sorts of discussions is essentially meaningless. It’s a convenient rhetorical device, generally used by election winners to claim authority for doing anything they want to do. Trying to stick specific numbers on it is little more than an effort to take a subjective judgment and pretend that it has some objective basis.
Pretty much the only time I ever see that word is in the negative, “not having a mandate.” I always understood it to mean a simple majority.
True, that happens too.
Winners claim that their margin of victory gives them a “mandate”; losers claim that it doesn’t. The term is, for the most part, just another piece of political rhetoric.
The electoral college system can change a 51% majority into a landslide.
While it’s unlikely, the electoral college system could change a minority into a landslide.
If you win a bunch of states in close races, but lose a different bunch of states in a landslide, it’s perfectly possible to win the electoral college with well under 50 percent of the popular vote.
You get a mandate when you campaign on something specific and high profile, then win. Ronald Reagan used this rhetorical device (we agree there) back in 1980-81.
A mandate exists when it exists. If you lose big in the next midterm, turns out you didn’t actually have a mandate to do what you were trying to do. Mandate isn’t just about the margin of course, it’s also about why you were elected. If your opponent was Donald Trump, then you were elected simply for not being Donald Trump.
Again, an effectively meaningless definition.
What is “high profile”? How specific is specific? What if your high profile and specific thing is not the main reason that people voted for you? How can you know?
You’re getting more and more vague all the time. Your next definition will be, “I can’t define a mandate, but i know one when i see it.”
It’s more that you tend to know about one after the fact. FDR obviously had a mandate, since he was continously rewarded with good election results, with the exception of 1938 when he got spanked by the voters. I don’t think any other President has really been able to claim a mandate successfully. It’s fascinating to me how these supposedly really smart people keep on misreading the mood of the voters.
So in 1984, the Democratic Party wasn’t sane? This sounds like circular logic.
How big is “Big”?
We agree that we’re discussing rhetoric. Basically, I thought Reagan/Shutz’s messaging on the subject in 1980-81 was effective and credible, as political rhetoric goes. Was it vague? Yeah, based upon googling it was a lot vaguer than I remembered. Here’s a link: Delivering the People’s Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential ... - Julia R. Azari - Google Books
Sample: [INDENT][INDENT]Reagan responded to political condititions by promoting the 1980 election specifically as a mandate for conservative economic ideas… Reagan…“when considering the economic recovery package [i.e. tax cuts tilted at high tax brackets and some budget cuts], I urge the Members of Congress to remember that last November the American people’s message was loud and clear. The mandate for change, expressed by the American people, was not my mandate; it was our mandate. Together we must remember that our primary responsibility is to the Nation as a whole and that there is nothing more important than putting America’s economic house in order.” [/INDENT][/INDENT] NYT argues in June 1981 that the mandate is bunk (which I see as evidence of rhetorical effectiveness): http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/07/books/does-reagan-have-a-mandate.html?pagewanted=all
My googling so far doesn’t exactly refute your POV.
FWIW, I also recall Hillary Clinton calling for Bill to get more specific in October, as they wanted not only a victory but a mandate. So it’s a thing, albeit an amorphous one.