What was the biggest landslide of the 20th Century

[Thomas D]

There are numbers you could use to support any 5 of these options. So what say you?

[jaichind]

Why not 1924.  The gap in terms of popular vote between the two major parties are wider than all the elections you have listed.  Of course 1924 is somewhat of a special election for me.  This is one election where I really like both major party candidates.  I am real fan of both Coolidge and Davis. 

[Thomas D]

I thought about putting in 1924. But decided against it due to Coolidge only receiving 54% of the vote. I know that's due to the fact there was a third candidate. And without him this poll probably isn't even needed because President Coolidge would have won 65-35 and blown these 5 choices out of the water.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Popular vote is what matters, so 1964.

[Mechaman]

Popular vote is what matters, so 1964.

I disagree.  I would argue that of all measures the degree of "hubris" is the most important factor in these landslides.  1964 did have good House gains for the Democrats but only modest at best gains (2 net seats) on the Senate level.  This in my mind makes it a bigger landslide than Nixon 1972 and Reagan 1984, both of which carried quite weak coattails given the election results.  The President was re-elected in both cases by decisive margins. . . . .but his party wasn't.  And while there were some serious gains made in 1964 in the House, it was mostly seen as a shaming of Goldwater and right wing Republicanism than it was a condemnation of the Republican Party as a whole.  Though really, the case for it is stronger than either 1972 or 1984.

To me it comes down to either 1920 or 1936.  I voted 1920, but looking back a very good case for 1936 can be made:
Just judging by the politcal environment the nation was in the results of the election suggest that FDR had the strongest mandate out of any president of the 20th century for re-election.  In a political environment where Democrats already held a supermajority (70%+) of Congressional seats with economic recovery still far out on the horizon (though much better than it was in 1932) and with the Republicans almost in endangered species level. .  . . people voted MORE Democrats into office and voted MORE Republicans out of office.  And not just normal gains/losses either. . . . Republicans lost six Senate seats (from the meager levels they had before) and 15 House seats (putting them below a hundred seats). . . . . . results that would've been disappointing in normal congressional elections.  How much more would it be if they were already on the brink of political Armageddon?  So, by hard popular vote numbers and congressional gains it doesn't seem like it's the biggest landslide in the 20th century. . . . but given the situation that existed I believe a strong argument exists that it was the strongest landslide.  Losing six Senate seats when you have only 22 out of a Senate that had 96 seats. . . . . . is probably a more damning result than losing 20 seats when your party has 55.  Especially considering that the Senate seats up for grabs were seats from 1930.  It is in effect a statement by the public that they would rather let a party verge on extinction than support them.

With that said I voted for 1920.
The results of that landslide were more spread out than the electoral maps suggests.  Republicans won super majorities in many northern states, including Democratic urban areas.  The election itself was a referendum on the Wilson years and nothing Cox and FDR could do could stop it.  In fact the results are probably one of the best results the Democrats could've had.  However, the losses don't just stop piling up on the Presidential level as Democrats were almost wiped out congressionally outside of the South.  They didn't win a state outside the South on the Senate level.. . . . yeah.  Republicans for the only time in history got to over 300 House seats.  Democrats held, depending on how loosely you define "South", less than 30 seats outside of the Old Confederacy.  62 House gains for Republicans, most of them in Democratic leaning urban areas and border states.  Ten Senate gains, which are much harder to do than one would think especially in a nation where the opposite party had dominance of one region of the country (the Democratic Solid South).  So on the considerable hubris of the election along with Harding's own decisive landslide outside of the South I voted 1920.

However, looking back I probably should've voted for 1936 using my own logic.  I would've also included 1932 on this poll, given the hundred plus seats the Republicans lost along with the electoral vote landslide.

So there you have my unconventional approach to judging landslides.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

To me, I consider it a landslide only if the losing candidate receives less than 100 electoral votes.  I would say FDR in 1936, because in terms of percentage in the electoral vote, he did better than either Nixon in 1972 or Reagan in 1984 (there were only 48 states then, and the EC had only 531 electors.)  523 is a greater percentage of 531 than 520 or 525 is of 538.  Plus, FDR managed to keep Landon in single digits in the EC vote.

[bedstuy]

I think it's 1920, followed by 1964.  Each candidate reached over 60% despite losing the South.  Harding particularly lost the South by a significant margin, which was preordained for a Republican at that time.  So, to reach a total of 60%, he had to cleanup in the rest of the country.  Johnson had the same situation, but he did better outside the deep south. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I think it's 1920, followed by 1964.  Each candidate reached over 60% despite losing the South.  Harding particularly lost the South by a significant margin, which was preordained for a Republican at that time.  So, to reach a total of 60%, he had to cleanup in the rest of the country.  Johnson had the same situation, but he did better outside the deep south. 

Johnson didn't really lose the South; he just lost the Deep South.

[nolesfan2011]

LBJ, simply because Goldwater and the GOP really didn't think that had anything close to a chance of winning the 64 election, and even a lot of Republicans voted for him even though he had done a lot of very progressive things before the election, and was an ardent progressive, at least on domestic issues. Goldwater just wanted the nomination to remake the party, but he never expected to win.

The only real base of Goldwater support was civil rights backlash in the south and he barely won his home state, otherwise it was just really hardcore Republicans and new conservative ideologues but nobody else, and the general public regarded Goldwater as "crazy".

Compared to other elections, Mondale and McGovern at least had chances but Reagan and Nixon just ran tons better campaigns (and McGovern came off as too much of a liberal softie in the era of hippies vs. lunchpail people). Nobody thought Walter Mondale was "crazy" at least.

Furthermore in terms of the political action scale, Nixon wasn't exactly a really hardcore conservative and Reagan, though he is a GOP hero, wasn't the most radically conservative President possible. (comapared to LBJ being on the most progressive presidents ever).

1920 was just a backlash against Wilson and WW1 and stuff (policy) and 1936 was just showing support for FDR "uniting America" and making it looked like he cared about all Americans during the depression (which was blamed on the GOP and was still going on) again a policy election. 

 

[DS0816]

...  I would say FDR in 1936, because in terms of percentage in the electoral vote, he did better than either Nixon in 1972 or Reagan in 1984 (there were only 48 states then, and the EC had only 531 electors.)  523 is a greater percentage of 531 than 520 or 525 is of 538.  Plus, FDR managed to keep Landon in single digits in the EC vote.

^ This.

I will also say that 1912, with Democratic pickup winner Woodrow Wilson having unseated incumbent Republican William Howard Taft, was highly remarkable. The loss by Taft was the most disastrous unseating of an incumbent, and from the party with the realigning advantage (Rs won seven of nine election cycles from 1896 to 1928), leaving just two states (Utah and Vermont) to carry for the 27th president. Six of Taft's 1908 states (California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington), went to Republican predecessor and Progressive nominee Teddy Roosevelt. And Wilson won the rest of the 40, which included then-newbies New Mexico and Arizona.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

1964 the country was more unified against Goldwater. Scared to death Goldwater was gonna start nuclear war on account of Cuba. 1984 rather was less so, the Dems had to find new candidates that was to the middle and 1992 did it for them.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I would go with either LBJ 64' or Nixon 72'.

One thing impressive about Nixon was how well he did in Democratic strongholds. He almost won NYC and Chicago (Cook County). Today, the GOP candidate loses those areas by a 90-10% ratio.

Yes, however, Nixon failed to raise the tide for the rest of his party. Had GOP congressional results mirrored Nixon's results, it surely would have been a very significant moment for the party. While we can still say the Nixon/Reagan coalition changed the makeup of the GOP, the specific landslide wasn't that big given the lack of coattails--something both Nixon and Ford were quite unhappy with.

[barfbag]

Nixon and Reagan both won the most states. Reagan won the most electoral votes. FDR won by the most electoral votes. According to contemporary electoral voting it would have to be Reagan or Nixon. There were much less votes cast in the 30's and 40's to really compare things to the 21st century. Things have just changed too much.

[stevekamp]

In terms of US House coattails, it's probably 1920:

Harding 60%, R House number 239 to 302 (+ 63)

FDR 1936 61%, D house number 322 to 333 ( + 11)

LBJ 1964 61.05%, D house number 259 to 295 (+ 36)

Nixon 1972, 60.77%, R house number 180 to 1923 ( + 12)

[barfbag]

I'll say 1972.

[DS0816]

1964 the country was more unified against Goldwater. Scared to death Goldwater was gonna start nuclear war on account of Cuba. 1984 rather was less so, the Dems had to find new candidates that was to the middle and 1992 did it for them.

Especially 25 of the 26 states which carried in Election 1960 for Richard Nixon:

Alaska
California
Colorado
Florida
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

The only state Barry Goldwater managed to carry that was also in Richard Nixon's 1960 Republican column was the senator's home state of Arizona. And just barely.

[Phony Moderate]

1920 as it marked the end of the Progressive Era and ushered in a period of smaller government. Of course, I'm interpreting the word "biggest" somewhat differently than the rest of you.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

In terms of percentages in the Electoral College, 1936 was the biggest landslide not just of the 20th century, but of history.  But in terms of raw electoral votes, 1984 takes both titles.

[Liberalrocks]

One could argue 1964 covering the above mentioned "Goldwater is crazy point" many were authentically scared of him. Also along with LBJ's massive popular vote margin he secured very large fillibuster proof majorities in the senate/huge democratic house delegation. Many states voted democratic back then that I just could not see going democratic today. Utah, and Idaho come to immediate mind.  Mormons in Salt Lake City for for Johnson LOL.

[mianfei]

Why not 1924.  The gap in terms of popular vote between the two major parties are wider than all the elections you have listed.  Of course 1924 is somewhat of a special election for me.  This is one election where I really like both major party candidates.  I am real fan of both Coolidge and Davis. 

It’s probable that without the third-party La Follette candidacy, Coolidge would have won something like 65—35, which would easily beat any actual popular vote percentage. Still, although Davis did worse than any other Democratic nominee in popular votes – in California, North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin he received fewer than ten percent of the votes, which no other on-ballot Democratic nominee has ever done – his losing margin was marginally less than Cox’s in 1920.

To my mind, it is a choice between 1920 and 1972, simply because Nixon and Harding dominated the country to an extraordinary extent. Outside antebellum slave states and Oklahoma, Cox carried a mere forty-one of over sixteen hundred counties! In only eleven “free” states did Harding lose a single county, and in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada and Montana Cox did not get an absolute majority in any of his six counties (Columbia, Greene and Monroe in PA, Manistee in Michigan, Clark in Nevada and Mineral in Montana). Moreover, as others have noted the Republicans gained huge margins in Congress.

In 1972, Nixon almost, but not quite, replicated Harding’s free-state dominance over the whole country: McGovern won only 130 counties nationwide (plus D.C. and several equivalents in Alaska) and won many of those by very small margins. Fewer than twenty counties gave McGovern sixty percent of their vote, and only two (Duval in Texas, Shannon in South Dakota) over seventy percent. McGovern was considered so radical he had trouble winning many black counties, and Nixon gained over 45 percent in the only two remaining “never voted Republican” counties of Brooks and Jim Hogg in South Texas (by contrast, Reagan did not manage 30 percent in those two counties). However, the 1972 vote was anti-McGovern, not anti-Democratic per se, and there was very limited coattails for Nixon.

1964 was, like 1972, a vote against the man. The Northeast many have been unable to take Goldwater’s policies, but state-level Republicans held up and more crucially, Goldwater did hold large numbers of rock-ribbed Republican counties everywhere bar the Northeast – although he did so by margins much smaller than usual in countless cases, most strikingly in famously Republican Leslie County, Kentucky where LBJ’s 47 percent more than doubled the previous best by a Democrat.

1936 needs to be set in context of a huge landslide from 1932: although FDR gained in the big cities and the public works-drenched West, Landon actually started rebuilding the GOP elsewhere and held traditional Republican bastions very firmly – e.g. in the previously noted Leslie County Landon got the customary 80 percent plus – whilst he captured 203 counties mainly in the Plains to provide a basis for much more striking gains by Willkie in 1940.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Why not 1924.  The gap in terms of popular vote between the two major parties are wider than all the elections you have listed.  Of course 1924 is somewhat of a special election for me.  This is one election where I really like both major party candidates.  I am real fan of both Coolidge and Davis. 

It’s probable that without the third-party La Follette candidacy, Coolidge would have won something like 65—35, which would easily beat any actual popular vote percentage. Still, although Davis did worse than any other Democratic nominee in popular votes – in California, North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin he received fewer than ten percent of the votes, which no other on-ballot Democratic nominee has ever done – his losing margin was marginally less than Cox’s in 1920.

To my mind, it is a choice between 1920 and 1972, simply because Nixon and Harding dominated the country to an extraordinary extent. Outside antebellum slave states and Oklahoma, Cox carried a mere forty-one of over sixteen hundred counties! In only eleven “free” states did Harding lose a single county, and in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada and Montana Cox did not get an absolute majority in any of his six counties (Columbia, Greene and Monroe in PA, Manistee in Michigan, Clark in Nevada and Mineral in Montana). Moreover, as others have noted the Republicans gained huge margins in Congress.

In 1972, Nixon almost, but not quite, replicated Harding’s free-state dominance over the whole country: McGovern won only 130 counties nationwide (plus D.C. and several equivalents in Alaska) and won many of those by very small margins. Fewer than twenty counties gave McGovern sixty percent of their vote, and only two (Duval in Texas, Shannon in South Dakota) over seventy percent. McGovern was considered so radical he had trouble winning many black counties, and Nixon gained over 45 percent in the only two remaining “never voted Republican” counties of Brooks and Jim Hogg in South Texas (by contrast, Reagan did not manage 30 percent in those two counties). However, the 1972 vote was anti-McGovern, not anti-Democratic per se, and there was very limited coattails for Nixon.

1964 was, like 1972, a vote against the man. The Northeast many have been unable to take Goldwater’s policies, but state-level Republicans held up and more crucially, Goldwater did hold large numbers of rock-ribbed Republican counties everywhere bar the Northeast – although he did so by margins much smaller than usual in countless cases, most strikingly in famously Republican Leslie County, Kentucky where LBJ’s 47 percent more than doubled the previous best by a Democrat.

1936 needs to be set in context of a huge landslide from 1932: although FDR gained in the big cities and the public works-drenched West, Landon actually started rebuilding the GOP elsewhere and held traditional Republican bastions very firmly – e.g. in the previously noted Leslie County Landon got the customary 80 percent plus – whilst he captured 203 counties mainly in the Plains to provide a basis for much more striking gains by Willkie in 1940.

What about Reagan in 1984 he was just 3000 votes away from sweeping all 50 states

[SingingAnalyst]

Why not 1924.  The gap in terms of popular vote between the two major parties are wider than all the elections you have listed.  Of course 1924 is somewhat of a special election for me.  This is one election where I really like both major party candidates.  I am real fan of both Coolidge and Davis.  

It’s probable that without the third-party La Follette candidacy, Coolidge would have won something like 65—35, which would easily beat any actual popular vote percentage. Still, although Davis did worse than any other Democratic nominee in popular votes – in California, North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin he received fewer than ten percent of the votes, which no other on-ballot Democratic nominee has ever done – his losing margin was marginally less than Cox’s in 1920.

To my mind, it is a choice between 1920 and 1972, simply because Nixon and Harding dominated the country to an extraordinary extent. Outside antebellum slave states and Oklahoma, Cox carried a mere forty-one of over sixteen hundred counties! In only eleven “free” states did Harding lose a single county, and in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada and Montana Cox did not get an absolute majority in any of his six counties (Columbia, Greene and Monroe in PA, Manistee in Michigan, Clark in Nevada and Mineral in Montana). Moreover, as others have noted the Republicans gained huge margins in Congress.

In 1972, Nixon almost, but not quite, replicated Harding’s free-state dominance over the whole country: McGovern won only 130 counties nationwide (plus D.C. and several equivalents in Alaska) and won many of those by very small margins. Fewer than twenty counties gave McGovern sixty percent of their vote, and only two (Duval in Texas, Shannon in South Dakota) over seventy percent. McGovern was considered so radical he had trouble winning many black counties, and Nixon gained over 45 percent in the only two remaining “never voted Republican” counties of Brooks and Jim Hogg in South Texas (by contrast, Reagan did not manage 30 percent in those two counties). However, the 1972 vote was anti-McGovern, not anti-Democratic per se, and there was very limited coattails for Nixon.

1964 was, like 1972, a vote against the man. The Northeast many have been unable to take Goldwater’s policies, but state-level Republicans held up and more crucially, Goldwater did hold large numbers of rock-ribbed Republican counties everywhere bar the Northeast – although he did so by margins much smaller than usual in countless cases, most strikingly in famously Republican Leslie County, Kentucky where LBJ’s 47 percent more than doubled the previous best by a Democrat.

1936 needs to be set in context of a huge landslide from 1932: although FDR gained in the big cities and the public works-drenched West, Landon actually started rebuilding the GOP elsewhere and held traditional Republican bastions very firmly – e.g. in the previously noted Leslie County Landon got the customary 80 percent plus – whilst he captured 203 counties mainly in the Plains to provide a basis for much more striking gains by Willkie in 1940.

What about Reagan in 1984 he was just 3000 votes away from sweeping all 50 states

Not only that, but Reagan won 525 EVs, more than anyone else. However, he was only the 6th best in terms of popular vote margin (Harding, Coolidge, FDR '36, Nixon, and Johnson all won by larger PV margins). I say FDR '36 was the biggest landslide (98.5% of the EV, more than Reagan).

[Mr. Smith]

Nixon '72.

McGovern got 37.5 on his side, Goldwater got 39 or so.

The margin is greater between Nixon and McGovern than between LBJ and Goldwater, FDR and Landon, or Reagan and Mondale.

[SingingAnalyst]

Nixon '72.

McGovern got 37.5 on his side, Goldwater got 39 or so.

The margin is greater between Nixon and McGovern than between LBJ and Goldwater, FDR and Landon, or Reagan and Mondale.

I hate to be picky, but FDR '36 beats Nixon '72 on many counts: winning EV% (98.5% to 96.8%); winning PV% (60.8% to 60.7%); PV margin (24.3% to 23.2%).

Theodore White noted the "deadly uniformity of returns in every region" of both those landslides; the same was true in '84.

[The Govanah Jake]

Just barely 1936 due to it having the largest electoral margin. I make that barely due to the fact that 1964 had a higher popular vote margin for Johnson and 1972 and 1920 with their utter dominance in traditional republican areas, the suburbs, and massive gains in the city's (With Harding even winning all of the Five boroughs of NYC).