primitives define "electoral landslide"

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512602912

Oh my.

BlueStateBlue (501 posts)     Mon Nov 7, 2016, 11:09 PM

What is your definition of an electoral landslide?

Generally, professional political scientists define it as an instance where one candidate gets 55% or more of the vote, but that's in simply a two-man race.  In a multi-man race, they seem to agree it's an instance where the winning candidate gets 10% more of the vote than the second candidate.

At least that's the way they defined it when I was in college.

Ever since Bill Clinton/s 43% and 49% "landslides" in 1992 and 1996 respectively, the definition might have shifted.  I dunno.  But any (D) candidate winning by a mere 50% + 1 of the vote, or even just a plurality in a multi-person race, is considered by the primitives to have won in a landslide.

Whatever.

Glamrock (1,234 posts)     Mon Nov 7, 2016, 11:11 PM

1. Nov. 8, 2016

<<<notices the primitive ^^^ doesn't say for who, though.

gopiscrap (13,557 posts)     Mon Nov 7, 2016, 11:11 PM

2. 315 plus electoral votes or 55 plus % of the vote

^^^sounds eminently reasonable.

lapfog_1 (15,900 posts)   Mon Nov 7, 2016, 11:12 PM

3. former speaker Ryan... meet Speaker Pelosi

napi21 (41,746 posts)     Mon Nov 7, 2016, 11:15 PM

6. Ooooh how much I would love you to be right!! I'm afraid hoping for the House

is a bit too much hope for.

lapfog_1 (15,900 posts)     Mon Nov 7, 2016, 11:16 PM

7. well, that's my definition of a blue wave landslide

but I think the FBI letter killed that.

Skittles (109,675 posts)   Mon Nov 7, 2016, 11:13 PM

4. one of the electoral vote tallies starts with 1

titaniumsalute (2,672 posts)     Mon Nov 7, 2016, 11:15 PM

5. 271. That's all I care about at the end of the day.

hertopos (796 posts)     Mon Nov 7, 2016, 11:23 PM

8. When we get both senate and house back!!

2008 was better than land slide, it was Tsunami.

I still believe it is doable.

By the way, a bit of useless trivia here.  I dunno why the pundidiots waste their time discussing a tie in the Electoral College, 269 to 269.  That's about as likely to happen as franksolich winning the Powerball lottery, an exact tie.

But.....if it were to happen, this tie in the Electoral College, the (R)s would win the presidency in the House of Representatives by a vote of 33 to 17.

Too bad for the primitives.

[Carl]

Funny how after 16 years they love the Electoral College now.

[USA4ME]

I think what they really meant is what would constitute a candidate winning a mandate. Traditionally, one would need to have over 50% of the popular vote and win at least 30 States, which no one will do today. So no mandate.

.

[jukin]

I think what they really meant is what would constitute a candidate winning a mandate. Traditionally, one would need to have over 50% of the popular vote and win at least 30 States, which no one will do today. So no mandate.

Don't you know that if a democrat wins it is a mandate and if a republican trounces the donk he is illegitimate....because lots of people didn't vote.