Worst electoral results for each party ever?

[CookieDamage]

"Ever" as in since the foundation of each party and when they became fixtures in elections. Republicans it seems suffered the worst in both 1912 and 1936 when they received only 8 electoral votes in both of those elections.

For Dems, it seems like the worst they've done in 13 EVs in 1984, before that maybe 1864?

Not really a point to this thread, I'm just bored and think it's interesting to see major parties flop so badly.

[One Term Floridian]

I think you just answered your own question.

GOP: 1936
Dems: 1984

[OSR stands with Israel]

I’d say 1920 for the Dems cause of how bad shape they were at the Congressional level too while in 1972 and 1984 they still won the house


For GOP it’s clearly 1936

[DINGO Joe]

Yeah 1920 for the Ds and 1936 and 2020 for the Rs

[Orser67]

1936 is, imo, the pretty clear choice for the GOP. FDR won the highest share of the electoral vote in any election since 1820, and his popular vote margin was just a couple points short of Harding's post-1820 record. On top of that, the GOP only held about a fifth of the seats in Congress after the election. As bad as 1964 and 1974 were for Republicans, they still controlled about 1/3 of both houses after each election. Obviously 1932 was also pretty bad, but I think it's simply outclassed by 1936. The other election worth mentioning is 1912, when Taft won the lowest share of the popular vote in either major party's history (obviously Roosevelt's third party run had a lot to do with this), and Republicans lost dozens of seats in the House and lost control of the Senate for the first in twenty years.

Democrats have a long list of truly terrible elections to choose from. 1872 was an embarrassing failure to combine with disaffected Republicans. 1894 basically wiped the party out outside of the South. 1920 was one of the biggest repudiations ever for one party. 1924 and 1928 were also huge blowouts. 1904, 1952, 1956, 1972, and 1984 all saw Republican landslides. I'd probably go with 1920 due to Harding's record-setting margin in the popular vote and huge Republican gains in Congress, but the 1894 elections are also high up on my list.

For the other major parties, I'd say 1816 for the Federalists (if you consider them basically defunct by 1820), 1828 for the National Republicans, and 1852 for the Whigs.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Yeah 1920 for the Ds and 1936 and 2020 for the Rs

This is a very hackish thing to say.
I hope you're just trying to troll Republicans

[DINGO Joe]

Yeah 1920 for the Ds and 1936 and 2020 for the Rs

This is a very hackish thing to say.
I hope you're just trying to troll Republicans

It's called push goals

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Yeah 1920 for the Ds and 1936 and 2020 for the Rs

This is a very hackish thing to say.
I hope you're just trying to troll Republicans

It's called push goals

So if Republicans have their worst year ever this year, all your other dreams/goals come true?

[DINGO Joe]

Yeah 1920 for the Ds and 1936 and 2020 for the Rs

This is a very hackish thing to say.
I hope you're just trying to troll Republicans

It's called push goals

So if Republicans have their worst year ever this year, all your other dreams/goals come true?

Well that's the jist of it.  Really, the R party needs some years in the wilderness as they're infected to the core with the racists, the grifters, and the crazies, so it might do them some good too.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Yeah 1920 for the Ds and 1936 and 2020 for the Rs

This is a very hackish thing to say.
I hope you're just trying to troll Republicans

It's called push goals

So if Republicans have their worst year ever this year, all your other dreams/goals come true?

Well that's the jist of it.  Really, the R party needs some years in the wilderness as they're infected to the core with the racists, the grifters, and the crazies, so it might do them some good too.

I don't agree but even if I agreed this is moot since of course the Republican Party is not gonna do worse than 1936.

[President Biden Democrat]

In modern elections (since World War Two)
Democrats: probably 1972 or 1984. They only won one state in both elections & DC.
Republicans: probably 1964. Republicans only won in the south and Arizona (6 states/52 EV)

[SingingAnalyst]

GOP 1936, but 1912 was interesting in that the GOP didn't reach 38% anywhere (it came closest in UT and VT, the two states it won).

Besides 1912, 1992 is the only time the GOP candidate failed to win a majority in any state (it's best state, at 49.7%, was MS).

Dem 1984 was notable for the same thing: again, its best state was MN (49.7%), the only state it won.

A case could be made that 1972 was a worse rout for the Dems than 1984, and I believe that is the subject of a discussion thread.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

It should be fairly obvious that the worst result for Republicans was 1936 and the worst result for Democrats was right after the Civil War, so something like 1866.

[Orwell]

GOP 1936, but 1912 was interesting in that the GOP didn't reach 38% anywhere (it came closest in UT and VT, the two states it won).

Besides 1912, 1992 is the only time the GOP candidate failed to win a majority in any state (it's best state, at 49.7%, was MS).

Dem 1984 was notable for the same thing: again, its best state was MN (49.7%), the only state it won.

A case could be made that 1972 was a worse rout for the Dems than 1984, and I believe that is the subject of a discussion thread.

I would say from an overall rout level 1920 was a bigger rout as was pointed out earlier by a Blue Oregon.

[Mr.Phips]

Obviously 1936 for Republicans and probably 1920 for Dems.

You can’t possibly put 1972 and 1984 anywhere close to this as Dems still easily held the House (and even the Senate in 1972) and most state legislatures in those years. 

[foolcase]

Republicans: 1912

Democrats: 1860 not counting Breckinridge as a democrat.

[Pericles]

One of the 1920s ones for Democrats as in many of their other landslide defeats they did fine down-ballot. Probably 1920 as the margins of defeat both presidentially and congressionally were the largest, but I could see 1924 being it too for how low of a vote share Davis received.

[morgankingsley]

The ONLY way you can argue that Reagan had a bigger landslide than Nixon is the fact that he had a higher electoral percentage. But that is somewhat deceptive. Mondale not only had a higher PV percent, and not only a lower margin of defeat, but he won several congressional districts and counties McGovern didn't. Mondale also had numerous states that he was close to winning, with Massachusetts and Rhode Island both being by less than five percent. McGovern didnt lose any state by less than five percent, and only four by less than ten, while Mondale won something like seven or eight by less than ten and another several by less than fifteen. Not to mention that some of Mondale's closest defeats were from high electoral vote states, such as PA and NY. McGovern dominated in Massachusetts, but Nixon torpedoed him everywhere else. Mondale barely won Minnesota, but Reagan eeked out in several places. That is why I always talk about why Reagan's victories, while decisive, are heavily over-rated on both cases

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The ONLY way you can argue that Reagan had a bigger landslide than Nixon is the fact that he had a higher electoral percentage. But that is somewhat deceptive. Mondale not only had a higher PV percent, and not only a lower margin of defeat, but he won several congressional districts and counties McGovern didn't. Mondale also had numerous states that he was close to winning, with Massachusetts and Rhode Island both being by less than five percent. McGovern didnt lose any state by less than five percent, and only four by less than ten, while Mondale won something like seven or eight by less than ten and another several by less than fifteen. Not to mention that some of Mondale's closest defeats were from high electoral vote states, such as PA and NY. McGovern dominated in Massachusetts, but Nixon torpedoed him everywhere else. Mondale barely won Minnesota, but Reagan eeked out in several places. That is why I always talk about why Reagan's victories, while decisive, are heavily over-rated on both cases

Yeah. It seems crazy but Barack Obama in 2012 took a higher share of the vote than Ronald Reagan in 1980.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The ONLY way you can argue that Reagan had a bigger landslide than Nixon is the fact that he had a higher electoral percentage. But that is somewhat deceptive. Mondale not only had a higher PV percent, and not only a lower margin of defeat, but he won several congressional districts and counties McGovern didn't. Mondale also had numerous states that he was close to winning, with Massachusetts and Rhode Island both being by less than five percent. McGovern didnt lose any state by less than five percent, and only four by less than ten, while Mondale won something like seven or eight by less than ten and another several by less than fifteen. Not to mention that some of Mondale's closest defeats were from high electoral vote states, such as PA and NY. McGovern dominated in Massachusetts, but Nixon torpedoed him everywhere else. Mondale barely won Minnesota, but Reagan eeked out in several places. That is why I always talk about why Reagan's victories, while decisive, are heavily over-rated on both cases

Yeah. It seems crazy but Barack Obama in 2012 took a higher share of the vote than Ronald Reagan in 1980.

That argument doesnt though really make much sense as most polls of Anderson voters had at most 60% of them voting Carter and many even less so Reagan still wins by around 8 points if you take out Anderson .

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The ONLY way you can argue that Reagan had a bigger landslide than Nixon is the fact that he had a higher electoral percentage. But that is somewhat deceptive. Mondale not only had a higher PV percent, and not only a lower margin of defeat, but he won several congressional districts and counties McGovern didn't. Mondale also had numerous states that he was close to winning, with Massachusetts and Rhode Island both being by less than five percent. McGovern didnt lose any state by less than five percent, and only four by less than ten, while Mondale won something like seven or eight by less than ten and another several by less than fifteen. Not to mention that some of Mondale's closest defeats were from high electoral vote states, such as PA and NY. McGovern dominated in Massachusetts, but Nixon torpedoed him everywhere else. Mondale barely won Minnesota, but Reagan eeked out in several places. That is why I always talk about why Reagan's victories, while decisive, are heavily over-rated on both cases

Yeah. It seems crazy but Barack Obama in 2012 took a higher share of the vote than Ronald Reagan in 1980.

That argument doesnt though really make much sense as most polls of Anderson voters had at most 60% of them voting Carter and many even less so Reagan still wins by around 8 points if you take out Anderson .

But they voted Anderson, not Reagan or Carter.
Why should we take out Anderson? I was just making a consideration.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The ONLY way you can argue that Reagan had a bigger landslide than Nixon is the fact that he had a higher electoral percentage. But that is somewhat deceptive. Mondale not only had a higher PV percent, and not only a lower margin of defeat, but he won several congressional districts and counties McGovern didn't. Mondale also had numerous states that he was close to winning, with Massachusetts and Rhode Island both being by less than five percent. McGovern didnt lose any state by less than five percent, and only four by less than ten, while Mondale won something like seven or eight by less than ten and another several by less than fifteen. Not to mention that some of Mondale's closest defeats were from high electoral vote states, such as PA and NY. McGovern dominated in Massachusetts, but Nixon torpedoed him everywhere else. Mondale barely won Minnesota, but Reagan eeked out in several places. That is why I always talk about why Reagan's victories, while decisive, are heavily over-rated on both cases

Yeah. It seems crazy but Barack Obama in 2012 took a higher share of the vote than Ronald Reagan in 1980.

That argument doesnt though really make much sense as most polls of Anderson voters had at most 60% of them voting Carter and many even less so Reagan still wins by around 8 points if you take out Anderson .

But they voted Anderson, not Reagan or Carter.
Why should we take out Anderson? I was just making a consideration.

Well it makes no sense to say Obama 2012 was a larger PV win than Reagan. If you are going on PV you have to go by margin imo

[Sumner 1868]

I'm not sure if the Electoral College is the best standard for judging this. Walter Mondale certainly had more widespread support than John W. Davis, but the Solid South guaranteed that even a widely unpopular Democratic candidate a certain number of Electoral votes.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The ONLY way you can argue that Reagan had a bigger landslide than Nixon is the fact that he had a higher electoral percentage. But that is somewhat deceptive. Mondale not only had a higher PV percent, and not only a lower margin of defeat, but he won several congressional districts and counties McGovern didn't. Mondale also had numerous states that he was close to winning, with Massachusetts and Rhode Island both being by less than five percent. McGovern didnt lose any state by less than five percent, and only four by less than ten, while Mondale won something like seven or eight by less than ten and another several by less than fifteen. Not to mention that some of Mondale's closest defeats were from high electoral vote states, such as PA and NY. McGovern dominated in Massachusetts, but Nixon torpedoed him everywhere else. Mondale barely won Minnesota, but Reagan eeked out in several places. That is why I always talk about why Reagan's victories, while decisive, are heavily over-rated on both cases

Yeah. It seems crazy but Barack Obama in 2012 took a higher share of the vote than Ronald Reagan in 1980.

That argument doesnt though really make much sense as most polls of Anderson voters had at most 60% of them voting Carter and many even less so Reagan still wins by around 8 points if you take out Anderson .

But they voted Anderson, not Reagan or Carter.
Why should we take out Anderson? I was just making a consideration.

Well it makes no sense to say Obama 2012 was a larger PV win than Reagan. If you are going on PV you have to go by margin imo

I did not mean to say that Obama's win was bigger. I just pointed out that he took a larger percentage of the vote than Reagan, which is undeniable fact. You may believe it is not a relevant fact, and that is fine.

[morgankingsley]

The ONLY way you can argue that Reagan had a bigger landslide than Nixon is the fact that he had a higher electoral percentage. But that is somewhat deceptive. Mondale not only had a higher PV percent, and not only a lower margin of defeat, but he won several congressional districts and counties McGovern didn't. Mondale also had numerous states that he was close to winning, with Massachusetts and Rhode Island both being by less than five percent. McGovern didnt lose any state by less than five percent, and only four by less than ten, while Mondale won something like seven or eight by less than ten and another several by less than fifteen. Not to mention that some of Mondale's closest defeats were from high electoral vote states, such as PA and NY. McGovern dominated in Massachusetts, but Nixon torpedoed him everywhere else. Mondale barely won Minnesota, but Reagan eeked out in several places. That is why I always talk about why Reagan's victories, while decisive, are heavily over-rated on both cases

Yeah. It seems crazy but Barack Obama in 2012 took a higher share of the vote than Ronald Reagan in 1980.

That argument doesnt though really make much sense as most polls of Anderson voters had at most 60% of them voting Carter and many even less so Reagan still wins by around 8 points if you take out Anderson .

But they voted Anderson, not Reagan or Carter.
Why should we take out Anderson? I was just making a consideration.

Well it makes no sense to say Obama 2012 was a larger PV win than Reagan. If you are going on PV you have to go by margin imo

I did not mean to say that Obama's win was bigger. I just pointed out that he took a larger percentage of the vote than Reagan, which is undeniable fact. You may believe it is not a relevant fact, and that is fine.

Guys all I meant was pointing out that despite the electoral votes of his victories create a seemingly blowout victory on both cases, when you look at how razor thin his margins in several states were (especially in 80) its ludicrous to say either of his victories were bigger than some if the true decimations we have seen, such as 72