Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
Thu Aug 4, 2016, 01:03 AM Aug 2016

Landslide doesn't mean what it used to mean.

Given how polarized the US is today, we aren't going to see a candidate win 500 electoral college votes. But I would call 2008 (when Obama got 365 electoral college votes) a landslide. I just want to throw that out there, as I see posts cautioning people against thinking Clinton will win in a landslide.

By today's standard (or my perspective of today's standard), I suspect Clinton - as unpopular as she is - will win in a landslide, which I'll define as 350 or more electoral college votes.

Landslide means different things to different people, and different things at different times.

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Landslide doesn't mean what it used to mean. (Original Post) Garrett78 Aug 2016 OP
270 needed to win, so I would agree that anything over 350 is a landslide. JaneyVee Aug 2016 #1
 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
1. 270 needed to win, so I would agree that anything over 350 is a landslide.
Thu Aug 4, 2016, 01:05 AM
Aug 2016

'Specially in such polarized times.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Landslide doesn't mean wh...