[superskierpat]

Can someone explain to me why the media constantly uses the word landslide to describe hillaries victories? I mean, looking at the results, I see that, superdelegates aside, most of the primaries seem to show a 5 to 10% difference between sanders and clinton.

I call that a rather close victory. (Even if 1% can mean thousands of people)

[emodendroket]

As I think this election cycle has made plain, calling someone the "mainstream" or "favored" candidate is an attempt to police the margins of discourse, not an objective statement of fact.

[gdulli]

The 2000 presidential election really changed things. The winner of the popular vote at the national level lost the election, and of course there was the whole Florida recount thing. 2004 was also very close and reinforced this. Since then a 10-15 point win seems like a bigger deal than it used to and the threshold for using "landslide" is lower.

Hillary won 3 of 5 states last night by 10+ points and the biggest state by 30+ points. Overall that might not have been called a landslide 20 years ago but the definition is looser now.

[toyg]

Yeah, since 2000 it became clear the US electoral process is f*ed up (which makes the whole "democracy" grandstanding very shallow). And I thought the UK system was bad...

[pmarreck]

At least we don't have a monarchy. ;)

[pvg]

Many of the results, a number in big states, are absolute, crushing landslides.

http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/elections-results...

Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia. Throw in very substantial margins in Ohio and North Carolina.

[superskierpat]

Makes it look like there is still a big difference between the north and the south.

[chippy]

> hillaries victories

Hillary is a name and not a noun and it's not really a plural here either (there is not more than one Hilary) and so the grammar should therefore be:

"Hilary's victories"

[superskierpat]

Sorry I'm from quebec, I'll be more careful.