Was 1856 a landslide or close election?

[morgankingsley]

In the popular vote, Buchanan won by over 12 points, and in a Fremont vs Buchanan only race nearly 16 points, which was the largest margin between 1836 and 1924 (1836 is a little cray cray but that's for a different day). But in the electoral college, Buchanan only got 58 percent, and a swing of three states to Fillmore would have put him below the majority and throw it to the house, and that may seem like it isn't that big of a deal until you realize that Fillmore was only about 15,000 votes away from his three closest defeats to doing this. So with the wide electoral margin, but the close eletcoral margin, would you vote for 1856 being a close or landslide election

[One Term Floridian]

Close. Only because Fillmore clearly siphoned more votes from Buchanan

[morgankingsley]

I feel like on a no Fillmore race, Maryland and Ohio might have gone Buchanan, and maybe New Hampshire on a good night, but not too much more than that honestly

[One Term Floridian]

I feel like on a no Fillmore race, Maryland and Ohio might have gone Buchanan, and maybe New Hampshire on a good night, but not too much more than that honestly

Yeah there was no real way Fremont could’ve won but Fillmore made it closer than it had to be

[Senator Incitatus]

Important context:

If Fillmore gains in those three or four states and denies Buchanan an electoral majority, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives. A contingent election in the House would (if following party lines from the most recent election in 1854) be as follows:

Party	States	Votes
Democratic	AR, CA, FL, SC, IL, VA, NC, AL, GA, LA, MS	11
Opposition (Whig-Rep)	MO, VT, ME, IN, OH, PA, MI, NJ, NY, WI	10
American (Know-Nothing)	MA, DE, NH, CT, RI, KY, MD	7
Split	IA, TN, TX	3

No party had a majority of the state delegations – however, the American Party began to collapse after the nomination of the Fillmore (who had no anti-immigration credentials and ran on a platform of national unity). I'd say it's possible to imagine a world where the election is thrown to the house and Buchanan does not win, either because New England Americans vote for Frémont or compromise with Democrats to elect Fillmore. (In fact, MA re-elected all but one of their unanimously-American-Party delegation as Republicans in 1856 – so for the purposes of a contingent election, they were Republican Party members and likely would have voted that way.)

Therefore, I consider it a close or contested election. But I would want more context on the exact sentiments of the House (especially w.r.t. war) before being certain of that. The North forcing Frémont in as President would have been even more provocative than electing Lincoln in 1860.

[Senator Incitatus]

Just did some quick research and found that in three of the above American Party states (MA, CT, NH) a majority of the incumbent delegation ran as Republican candidates in 1856.

The lone representative from Delaware (Elisha Cullen) ran again as an AP candidate in 1856. I can't find any record of his party ID after 1856, but his opponent in that election was a Democrat, which indicates he also tended to vote with Republicans.

In Rhode Island, one incumbent (Nathan Durfee) ran as a Republican and the other (Benjamin B. Thurston) was not a candidate for re-nomination, but had previously been a Democrat. His seat was won by a Republican.

All of this is shorthand for the functional fact that Republicans very likely held 13 votes (of a possible 31) in the event of a contingent House election. With split delegations not counted, they'd only have to persuade Cullen or Thurston to vote with them to acheive a majority.

Here is a clearer picture of how the House delegations stood:

Party	States	Votes
Opposition (Whig-Rep)	MO, VT, ME, IN, OH, PA, MI, NJ, NY, WI, MA, CT, NH	13
Democratic	AR, CA, FL, SC, IL, VA, NC, AL, GA, LA, MS	11
American (Know-Nothing)	DE, KY, MD	3
Split	IA, RI*, TN, TX	4