News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by dragonwriter on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @04:07PM (#13545190)
> First, tell me the numbers for electoral votes. I would consider that a landslide

Then you don't understand what a landslide, electoral or otherwise, is. Of the post-WWII elections, virtually all were bigger wins, electorally, the exception being both of George W. Bush's elections, Nixon's 1968 election, and Kennedy's 1960 election.

Actually, while WWII is often used as a breakpoint for considering modern elections, the same is true if you extend the timeframe to post-WWI.

Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by williamle8300 on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @04:19PM (#13545326)
You may not consider 232 (CLINTON) -– 306 (TRUMP) a landslide but I certainly do.
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump by dragonwriter on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @04:22PM (#13545356)
If you do, you rob "landslide" of any substantive meaning -- virtually every Presidential election is a "landslide" by that standard, and Trump's is the fifth weakest in 100 years.