ELECTION: Not really a landslide

In the wake of the recent presidential election, the words “mandate” and “landslide” are being used carelessly. In one example, a contributor to The Press recently called the results “a landslide victory” and just a few sentences later further embellished the outcome by referring to it as “a huge landslide of votes.” In another, the president-elect himself said “America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate; a political victory that our country has never seen before, nothing like this.”  

Let’s put this in political and historical perspective. Mandates are the product of landslide victories which are generally considered to be a margin of 10 percentage points or more. In the last 16 presidential elections, only four have reached that threshold (Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1980 and 1984). Where does the 2024 election stand? As of Monday, Nov. 18, the president-elect stood at 49.94% while his opponent stood at 48.26% — an edge of 1.68%, far short of 10%. That isn’t even a majority let alone a landslide/mandate. Taking historical perspective further, in all 59 presidential elections, only five of the winners of the popular vote had smaller margins of victory than occurred in the 2024 election.

Since these numbers do not change the election’s outcome, why do they matter? They matter because they demonstrate how evenly divided the country is. They demonstrate that our nation’s challenges are not going to be resolved by either party cramming their solutions down the throats of the other side. They demonstrate that the only viable road to a healthy future for our country is one of collaboration. But is anyone paying attention?

MIKE HENGGELER

Coeur d’Alene