Whose landslide reelection loss was bigger?

[President Johnson]

Both Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter were defeated in their reelection bids in a landslide. Whose loss was bigger?

- Hoover lost the popular vote 39-57% and the electoral vote 59-472 (11-89%).
- Carter lost the popular vote 41-51% and the electoral vote 49-489 (9-91%).

I'd say Hoover. 1980 was only such an electoral landslide because of Anderson. LBJ in 1964 just won three electoral votes less but the popular vote by 22% instead of slightly under 10%.

[Yu748Girl83]

Hoover's, looking at the popular vote. Hoover lost by 17.8 points, while Carter lost by 9.8, so Hoover, bigger landslide loss.

[Vice President Christian Man]

Hoover. It's unclear what Hoover's approval ratings looked like as polling didn't exist then but I assume that it was extremely low especially outside the NE considering how much he lost by. On the other hand, Carter was lucky that he didn't lose by a bigger margin. His approval rating was in the 20's and began to increase around October to around 40% by ED. Had the election been held a few weeks later, it's possible he could've only lost by HW or Trump margins.

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

Hoover. He lost states a Democrat had either never won (Minnesota) or not won since before the Civil War (Michigan, Pennsylvania). Several counties only voted Democratic in 1932 since the civil war.

[SWE]

Hoover lost the tipping point state (Iowa) by 17.7%, while Carter only lost his (Illinois) by 7.8%. Jimmy Carter was much closer to being reelected

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hoover by basically every measure. Not sure how this is even a question.

[E-Dawg]

Hoover by basically every measure. Not sure how this is even a question.

I agree with you, but the electoral college does not.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hoover by basically every measure. Not sure how this is even a question.

I agree with you, but the electoral college does not.

TIL Hoover got more electoral votes in 1932 than Carter did in 1980. Weird electoral fact.

[Mr. Smith]

Hoover.

1/3 of Carter's losses were razor thin.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Hoover. He lost states a Democrat had either never won (Minnesota) or not won since before the Civil War (Michigan, Pennsylvania). Several counties only voted Democratic in 1932 since the civil war.

Hoover won Pennsylvania.

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

Hoover. He lost states a Democrat had either never won (Minnesota) or not won since before the Civil War (Michigan, Pennsylvania). Several counties only voted Democratic in 1932 since the civil war.

Hoover won Pennsylvania.

I figured. I should've said Iowa instead (with the exception of 1912)

[President Johnson]

Hoover by basically every measure. Not sure how this is even a question.

I agree with you, but the electoral college does not.

TIL Hoover got more electoral votes in 1932 than Carter did in 1980. Weird electoral fact.

There also were fewer available at the time, although Carter still got a smaller share. Different story on the opposite: While Reagan got the most electoral votes in total (525), FDR's 523 tally was still a larger majority when there were only 531 electoral votes instead of 538. That's an incredible 98.5%, while Reagan's was "only" 97.6%.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hoover's 1932 defeat was part of a massive realignment that was not quickly undone.

Carter's 1980 loss was devastating in that he lost the Senate as well as failing to get re-elected, but Reagan's landslide were more of the fruits of a previous realignment than a new realigning movement.  The Senators that lost in 1980 would likely of lost if Carter had been a stronger candidate.  Folsom, Church, Durkin, Morgan, Bayh, Stone, were all likely to lose to Republicans in 1980.  The 1926 Democrats appeared safe until the Depression came and realigned politics.  There were already inklings of this realignment.  Frank Church should not have been shocked by his loss, given that Gale McGee and Frank Moss had lost Senate seats in 1976 in other Western states.

[DS0816]

I think 1912 unseated Republican incumbent William Howard Taft deserves recognition.

That was interesting.

[Orser67]

Hoover. In addition to the various other points that posters made, I'd add that the president's party suffered worse losses in 1932 than 1980 (not that the 1980 losses were trivial).

The only real metric that would favor 1980 as the bigger loss is the electoral vote, but imo electoral vote margin isn't particularly relevant when specifically discussing landslide elections. As SWE noted, the  tipping point state was much closer in 1980 than in 1932, and I think that's indicative of the fact that Carter was much closer to winning in 1980 than Hoover was to winning in 1932.