When is a landslide not a landslide?

[RocksInMyHead]

You could argue that he won a landslide in the electoral count, but that ignores the fact that votes there are awarded en bloc and many states he won in the college he won by pretty small margins. As for the Senate and the House races, even though they are held at the same time they are separate races from the PResidential one. Trying to credit the Presidential candidate for those victories doesn't make sense.

You can't even argue that really. Trump won with a 16% margin in the EC. A solid victory, for sure, but a landslide? No. Reagan won the EC in a landslide.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

And we the people have him the Presidency, the House and the Senate. A clean sweep. Another term for landslide

No, it isn't. A sweep is a sweep. A landslide is a landslide. They are two different words with two different meanings. A sweep means that you win all of the contests in a series. A landslide means that you win a contest by a huge margin.

 

[durangodawood]

No, it isn't. A sweep is a sweep. A landslide is a landslide. They are two different words with two different meanings. A sweep means that you win all of the contests in a series. A landslide means that you win a contest by a huge margin.

When words dont work for you, change their meaning!

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'm not really sure that it matters what you call it. You could call it a big win; or you could call it a mandate; you could call it a demand for change, or you could call it peanut butter guacamole, if you wanted to. The name doesn't really matter, IMHO. What matters is that the People at large sent a message to the people on one side of the political spectrum, and the people on that side of the spectrum ignore or dismiss that message to their detriment.

It does matter what you call it. As I've said multiple times in this thread, words have meanings. For instance, I wouldn't call it a "mandate" - Republicans maintained control of the House by a narrow margin, took narrow control of the Senate, and narrowly won the Presidency. That doesn't signal a mandate. Sure, a majority of people in most places preferred the Republican candidate to the Democratic one, but it was a pretty small majority overall. Does it signal that people want changes? Absolutely. But a mandate implies carte blanche to enact your agenda. If Republicans go in with that attitude, I think they'll be in for a rude awakening in 2026.

Similarly, calling Trump's win a "landslide" implies that an overwhelming majority of voters wanted him. That, in turn, implies a mandate, which - as I explained above - it wasn't.

 

[rjs330]

And we the people have him the Presidency, the House and the Senate. A clean sweep. Another term for landslide

The media has not got it right in seven years, what changed?

Good point.

 

[rjs330]

Is that them leaving the Whit House with their LGBTQ+ supporters?

Thats a good one.

 

[rjs330]

And while the GOP did gain a couple of seats in the Senate, two of those were expected regardless of who was running for President, and a third was won by only .3% of the vote. Trump scored a decent victory, but calling it a landslide or acting as if it gives him carte blanch to do whatever he wants is a bit much.

Nah, it gives him rhe ability to do what any other president is able to do with the presidency, the house and the senate.

He can enact whatever policies he wants in the executive branch and push for whatever legislation he would like to see. All because they American people chose him.

It's an electoral landslide and a significant win for the House and Senate.

 

[Always in His Presence]

No, it isn't. A sweep is a sweep. A landslide is a landslide. They are two different words with two different meanings. A sweep means that you win all of the contests in a series. A landslide means that you win a contest by a huge margin.

A landslide victory implies a powerful expression of popular will and a ringing endorsement by the electorate for the winner’s political platform. Such a decisive outcome can lead the winner to interpret it as a mandate or a tacit authorization from the public to implement their proposed policies and pursue their agenda with confidence. Emboldened by the result, the winner may undertake ambitious reforms or significant policy shifts to reflect the electorate’s desire for meaningful change​

​

That is EXACTLY what is happening - no need to change words - the definition fits.

 

[rjs330]

A landslide victory implies a powerful expression of popular will and a ringing endorsement by the electorate for the winner’s political platform. Such a decisive outcome can lead the winner to interpret it as a mandate or a tacit authorization from the public to implement their proposed policies and pursue their agenda with confidence. Emboldened by the result, the winner may undertake ambitious reforms or significant policy shifts to reflect the electorate’s desire for meaningful change​

​

That is EXACTLY what is happening - no need to change words - the definition fits.

It's so funny how they are desperately trying to not make this a major win. Minimizing this win is all they have left. Whatever if it makes them feel better.

 

[JSRG]

We know that in reality President Trump won a landslide election. With 312 electoral college votes, with 2.93 million more in the popular vote - all seven swing states - The majority in the House - The Majority in the Senate.

But it wasn't a landslide election. That's the thing. That "2.93 million" sure sounds big until you realize that about 150 million people voted. (note also that thanks to some states being notoriously slow at counting, the numbers are not final and could narrow a bit, especially as most of the uncounted votes are in California).

In terms of results--as in, who got elected and the number of electors--the Republicans did pretty well. But it's a far cry from a landslide. They won in the electoral college pretty decisively (though I would still not call it a landslide), though the popular vote was as above rather narrow. They gained in the Senate, but they failed to flip multiple swing states. If they had gained Wisconsin, Arizona, and Michigan, that would have been a landslide in the Senate, but they didn't, so it wasn't. As for the House, Republicans barely eked out a majority there. It's not clear if it will be larger or smaller than their previous majority (which was very narrow), but either way it certainly won't be much of an improvement. Certainly not a landslide.

That's when we look simply at results. It's even less of a landslide when it comes to voting. If just 1% of people who voted changed from Republican to Democrat, then the Democrats would have a majority in the Senate, they'd have a majority in the House, and Harris would be president. If just swapping 1% of the voters from one party to the next upends the results like that, it's clearly not a landslide.

EDIT: My statement on the Senate was inaccurate; this 1% switch would have left the Republicans with fewer seats in the Senate than they ended up having, but they would have still had a majority. My statements on the presidency and House remain accurate.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It's so funny how they are desperately trying to not make this a major win. Minimizing this win is all they have left. Whatever if it makes them feel better.

denial is more than a river in Egypt

 

[BCP1928]

denial is more than a river in Egypt

Go ahead and gloat about your "landslide." Sooner or later it will dawn on you that you got the win because of real issues about the economy and immigration--not because the voters who put you over cared very much about the Great Replacement or about what bathroom people use. You got a mandate, but not a sweeping victory in the culture war. The Democrats failed to solve the real problems that we face as a nation. They were swept out of office and good riddance. Now it's up to you, and if you can't solve them you will be swept out just as fast, even if you do stop drag queens from reading to kids. Slaying the woke monster won't do it.

 

[JosephZ]

But it wasn't a landslide election. That's the thing. That "2.93 million" sure sounds big until you realize that about 150 million people voted. (note also that thanks to some states being notoriously slow at counting, the numbers are not final and could narrow a bit, especially as most of the uncounted votes are in California).

That 2.93 million lead has since dropped to 2.7 million. The margin between VP Harris and Trump is now just 1.8%. There are still close to 2 million votes that have yet to be counted, most in California's blue counties, so the margin between the two candidates will continue to shrink. This was clearly not a landslide as you correctly pointed out.

There have been several legitimate landslides over the past 100 years, but Trump's win in 2024 wasn't one of them.

• 1928 – Herbert Hoover (R) received 444 (83.6%) of the electoral votes while Al Smith (D) received only 87 (16.4%).
• 1932 – Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) received 472 (88.9%) of the electoral votes while Herbert Hoover (R) received only 59 (11.1%).
• 1936 – Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) received 523 (98.5%) of the electoral votes—the largest share since 1820 and the largest in a non-unanimous election—while Alf Landon (R) received only 8 (1.5%). Additionally, Roosevelt received 60.8% of the popular vote.
• 1940 – Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) received 449 (84.6%) of the electoral votes while Wendell Willkie (R) received only 82 (15.4%).
• 1944 – Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) received 432 (81.4%) of the electoral votes while Thomas E. Dewey (R) received only 99 (18.6%).
• 1952 – Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) received 442 (83.2%) of the electoral votes while Adlai Stevenson II (D) received only 89 (16.8%).
• 1956 – Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) received 457 (86.1%) of the electoral votes while Adlai Stevenson II (D) received only 73 (13.7%).
• 1964 – Lyndon B. Johnson (D) received 486 (90.3%) of the electoral votes while Barry Goldwater (R) received only 52 (9.7%). Additionally, Johnson received 61.1% of the popular vote.
• 1972 – Richard Nixon (R) received 520 (96.7%) of the electoral votes while George McGovern (D) received only 17 (3.2%). One Republican elector voted for John Hospers of the Libertarian Party. Additionally, Nixon received 60.7% of the popular vote.
• 1980 – Ronald Reagan (R) received 489 (90.9%) of the electoral votes while Jimmy Carter (D) received only 49 (9.1%).
• 1984 – Ronald Reagan (R) received 525 (97.6%) of the electoral votes while Walter Mondale (D) received only 13 (2.4%).
• 1988 – George H. W. Bush (R) received 426 (79.2%) of the electoral votes while Michael Dukakis (D) received only 111 (20.8%). This is considered as the most recent landslide U.S. presidential election.

To put Trump's win in perspective, He will receive 312 (59%) of the electoral votes to VP Harris' 226 (41%)

 

[Vambram]

That 2.93 million lead has since dropped to 2.7 million. The margin between VP Harris and Trump is now just 1.8%. There are still close to 2 million votes that have yet to be counted, most in California's blue counties, so the margin between the two candidates will continue to shrink. This was clearly not a landslide as you correctly pointed out.

There have been several legitimate landslides over the past 100 years, but Trump's win in 2024 wasn't one of them.

• 1928 – Herbert Hoover (R) received 444 (83.6%) of the electoral votes while Al Smith (D) received only 87 (16.4%).
• 1932 – Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) received 472 (88.9%) of the electoral votes while Herbert Hoover (R) received only 59 (11.1%).
• 1936 – Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) received 523 (98.5%) of the electoral votes—the largest share since 1820 and the largest in a non-unanimous election—while Alf Landon (R) received only 8 (1.5%). Additionally, Roosevelt received 60.8% of the popular vote.
• 1940 – Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) received 449 (84.6%) of the electoral votes while Wendell Willkie (R) received only 82 (15.4%).
• 1944 – Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) received 432 (81.4%) of the electoral votes while Thomas E. Dewey (R) received only 99 (18.6%).
• 1952 – Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) received 442 (83.2%) of the electoral votes while Adlai Stevenson II (D) received only 89 (16.8%).
• 1956 – Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) received 457 (86.1%) of the electoral votes while Adlai Stevenson II (D) received only 73 (13.7%).
• 1964 – Lyndon B. Johnson (D) received 486 (90.3%) of the electoral votes while Barry Goldwater (R) received only 52 (9.7%). Additionally, Johnson received 61.1% of the popular vote.
• 1972 – Richard Nixon (R) received 520 (96.7%) of the electoral votes while George McGovern (D) received only 17 (3.2%). One Republican elector voted for John Hospers of the Libertarian Party. Additionally, Nixon received 60.7% of the popular vote.
• 1980 – Ronald Reagan (R) received 489 (90.9%) of the electoral votes while Jimmy Carter (D) received only 49 (9.1%).
• 1984 – Ronald Reagan (R) received 525 (97.6%) of the electoral votes while Walter Mondale (D) received only 13 (2.4%).
• 1988 – George H. W. Bush (R) received 426 (79.2%) of the electoral votes while Michael Dukakis (D) received only 111 (20.8%). This is considered as the most recent landslide U.S. presidential election.

To put Trump's win in perspective, He will receive 312 (59%) of the electoral votes to VP Harris' 226 (41%)

Is Trump's win over Harris the closest thing to an electoral college landslide since the 1988 elections?

 

[JSRG]

Is Trump's win over Harris the closest thing to an electoral college landslide since the 1988 elections?

Clinton and Obama outdid him in both of their terms. Trump got 312 votes in 2024. Clinton got 370 in 1992 and 379 in 1996 while Obama got 365 in 2008 and 332 in 2012.

 

[JosephZ]

A landslide victory implies a powerful expression of popular will and a ringing endorsement by the electorate for the winner’s political platform. Such a decisive outcome can lead the winner to interpret it as a mandate or a tacit authorization from the public to implement their proposed policies and pursue their agenda with confidence. Emboldened by the result, the winner may undertake ambitious reforms or significant policy shifts to reflect the electorate’s desire for meaningful changeThat is EXACTLY what is happening - no need to change words - the definition fits.

In the military, an enlisted person impersonating an officer is a very serious offense. In politics, a party pretending and acting as if it has a mandate is a similarly serious transgression.

Mandates are the product of landslide victories, a margin of 10 percentage points or more in presidential politics. There have been four such landslide wins in the post-World War II era. Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Nixon both recorded 23-point victories—the former in 1964 over Barry Goldwater, racking up 486 out of 538 Electoral College votes, the latter in 1972 over George McGovern, garnering 520 electoral votes. Ronald Reagan was responsible for the other two—an 18-point win over Walter Mondale in 1984, garnering 525 electoral votes, and by 10 points and with 489 electoral votes in 1980, en route to defeating President Carter. In terms of congressional politics, let’s just say that mandates come with massive majorities.

 

[Vambram]

In the military, an enlisted person impersonating an officer is a very serious offense. In politics, a party pretending and acting as if it has a mandate is a similarly serious transgression.

Mandates are the product of landslide victories, a margin of 10 percentage points or more in presidential politics. There have been four such landslide wins in the post-World War II era. Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Nixon both recorded 23-point victories—the former in 1964 over Barry Goldwater, racking up 486 out of 538 Electoral College votes, the latter in 1972 over George McGovern, garnering 520 electoral votes. Ronald Reagan was responsible for the other two—an 18-point win over Walter Mondale in 1984, garnering 525 electoral votes, and by 10 points and with 489 electoral votes in 1980, en route to defeating President Carter. In terms of congressional politics, let’s just say that mandates come with massive majorities.

It's interesting to note that article was written in September 2021. Therefore, I am curious if the Democratic Party thought they had won a landslide victory in 2020? Why did it appear as if the Democratic Party & the Biden/Harris administration believe that they had a landslide mandate from the American voters?

 

[JosephZ]

It's interesting to note that article was written in September 2021. Therefore, I am curious if the Democratic Party thought they had won a landslide victory in 2020? Why did it appear as if the Democratic Party & the Biden/Harris administration believe that they had a landslide mandate from the American voters?

That was the impression I got from the article.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

A landslide victory implies a powerful expression of popular will and a ringing endorsement by the electorate for the winner’s political platform.​

​

That is EXACTLY what is happening - no need to change words - the definition fits.

Winning an election by 2% is not a "powerful expression of popular will". Neither is squeaking out a narrow majority in the legislature. Republicans are free to interpret their results however they wish, but if they choose to see it as a mandate to implement their full agenda, I think you may be in for a surprise come 2026.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It's interesting to note that article was written in September 2021. Therefore, I am curious if the Democratic Party thought they had won a landslide victory in 2020? Why did it appear as if the Democratic Party & the Biden/Harris administration believe that they had a landslide mandate from the American voters?

There were certainly some within the Democratic Party who saw things that way. Clearly, they were mistaken. Seems to me that Republicans might be headed down the same path, if the gloating responses from certain members of this forum are representative of general attitudes.