A landslide electoral victory in
representative democracy is typically limited to the criterion of the extent of
the vote-spread between candidates for a given office. In regard to the U.S.
presidency, the Electoral College presents an alternative criterion, especially
as a significant difference in votes in the College may not be reflected in the
popular vote. Although that vote is by member state, the totals from all of the
states are typically used to assess whether a landslide has occurred and thus
whether the winning candidate has a political mandate to implement campaign
promises. Whether a landslide or not, winning an election legitimates a candidate
implementing the platform on which a candidate has campaigned. So whether a
candidate for U.S. president has a landslide has typically been over-emphasized
by American journalists, as if not having a large spread in the popular vote—even
if such a spread exists in the Electoral College vote (which is the vote that
really matters in the election of a U.S. president)—means that the winner has
no prerogative to enact one’s agenda. I contend that even under the assumption
that an electoral landslide is important, there are alternative ways of
assessing whether a landslide has occurred.
A landslide can be inferred in
terms of the extent of a shift from one party’s candidate to that of another. In
the election of 2024, over 90% of counties in all of the U.S.’s member states
shifted in the direction of Donald Trump from the election in 2020. That the shift
took place in so many counties can be reckoned as significant, and thus as a
landslide in terms of shift.
Yet another way to interpret whether a landslide has occurred is to compare how many more or less votes a candidate (or party) has received in an election relative to previous election. For instance, “Donald Trump added about 2.8 million votes to his total in his 2024 victory [from the election in 2020]. Vice President kamala Harris, on the other hand, underperformed by about 6.8 million votes compared with Joe Biden in 2020, according to CNN election results as of November 25 [2024].”[1] Viewing Trump’s gain with Harris’s underperformance relative to Biden in 2020 is arguably more revealing than is looking at small percentage-point difference (49.9% to 46.9%) between the two candidates’ totals in the popular vote (158,425, 893 and 154,247, 094, respectively) in 2024.[2]
The tide was coming in for Donald Trump and was going out for the Biden-Harris administration. Harris had said during the campaign that she would not differ from Biden’s policies, so comparing Biden in 2020 with Harris in 2024 is valid. That Harris received almost 2 million fewer votes in California, her home state, than Biden had received there in 2020 is also revealing regarding the depth of the shift away from her in 2024.[3]
The top line shows California (source: CNN)
Loading only on the 49.9% to 46.9% difference in the overall popular vote
totals masks the magnitude and depth of the shift; the 312 to 226 significant
difference in the Electoral College in the 2024 election results is a better indication,
though the bias toward relatively less populated states that typically vote
Republican overstates the real difference that would exist if the number of
electoral votes that each member state has were based only on the number of the
number of U.S. House representatives rather than adding the number of U.S.
senators in too. Therefore, a landslide in the Electoral College can be
considered as less legitimate than the percentage spread in the overall popular
vote.
Therefore, I contend that
measures indicative of the extent and depth of a basic shift pervading all the
electorates of the states can be used to assess whether a landslide has indeed
occurred. Using this criterion, the 2024 U.S. presidential election can be viewed
as a landslide. Contributing factors may include Harris’ decision to continue
arms sales to Israel even though the International Court of Justice had ruled
that Israel’s entire occupation violates international law. The International Criminal
Court would subsequently issue arrest warrants for two Israeli government
officials, including Netanyahu. Another factor may have been the failure of the
Biden-Harris administration to sufficiently aid Ukraine to forestall
territorial advances of Russia in its invasion of the sovereign country. Still
another factor may have been the spreading anti-woke reaction and the failure of the Democratic Party to push back on its woke wing in the general election. The
Biden-Harris administration’s refusal to apply anti-trust to the meat-producing
and grocer industries when prices stayed high after the pandemic may have influenced
the working-class voters who had not shifted over to voting based on
social/cultural (i.e., woke) issues. Trump’s visual use of an assassination attempt
to “Fight” may also have been a factor. In short, the image of Trump’s fist in
the air as he was ushered away from his speaking platform with a bloody ear is
miles away from the image of half-measures and political calculation. I contend
that the indicators of a general shift from 2020 in the election results better
reflect these factors than does the small overall percentage-spread in the
popular vote for Trump and Harris in 2024.
1. Amy O’Kruk et al, “7 Charts and Maps Where Harris Underperformed and Lost the Election,” Cnn.com, November 27, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3 Ibid.
