A landslide electoral college victory isn't necessarily a landslide victory. A candidate can win 50% of the vote but do so very evenly, while the loser gets 47%-- across the board in every state, too. I doubt that would happen in today's polarized USA, however, the states are far less homogenous than they used to be.
Would you also be able to add the actual percentages the winning and losing candidate got? It would be interesting to compare the actual vote numbers with the electoral vote numbers.
Richard Nixon's victory in 1972 was massive, and it heralded a new political alignment where Republican candidates won every election from 1972-1988 in gigantic landslides except for Jimmy Carter's close victory over Gerald Ford 1976, which is an outlier because of Watergate.
The reason for the GOP's dominance in that period is that the southern bloc that had been dependably Democratic from the days of Andrew Jackson finally abandoned the Democratic Party for good (so far) because LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act into law. The 1968 election was close because the formerly Democratic southern states may have left the Dems, but they didn't turn to the Republicans yet, instead running 3rd Party pro-segregation candidate George Wallace. By '72 the 'Solid South,' joined the GOP, where it remains, and it's why 3 elections from '72 and '84 are on this list, and just missing the cut is George H. W. Bush's dismantling of Michael Dukakis in 1988.
That was fascinating to read. I'm not being snarky, either. I wasn't born when all that happened, and I hadn't really heard how/why things changed so dramatically. Thanks for the mini history lesson! :)
Yes, you are generally correct, but it's worth recognizing that the Democratic party was not entirely shut out of the south; Clinton and Gore were both southerners, and the 1992 ticket won Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Kentucky (4 out of 10 former Confederate states). Florida has been a swing state for the past 20 years, while Virginia is proving to have become solidly Democratic at the state and national level. My point is that it's not impossible for Democrats to win in the south even at the national level - Obama won Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida and Biden may be able to repeat that feat.
The thing is both the Republican and Democratic Party have basically morphed into parties that are not at all the same as the time of the Civil War or even after Reformation. For example, The Republican party was very pro-civil rights as it started out, but by the 1960s when the civil rights movement came about, they were almost al against it.
I remember '72. One candidate had been killed in the '68 election which was still on our minds. Many Democrats and Republicans were closer to the center back then, but in '72 the Dems chose a very liberal McGovern as their candidate. It had been assumed Ted Kennedy would be the candidate but Chappaquiddick ended that, opening the field. McGovern wound up with the most primary delegates, but the Dems made a lot of rule changes at their convention which ticked a lot of supporters off, and in the end McGovern won the nomination but there were votes cast for dozens of candidates, and choosing a running mate turned into a fiasco. Less than three weeks after announcing Tom Eagleton as the VP running mate, it came out that Eagleton had failed to disclose that he received electroshock therapy for depression and Eagleton stepped down. Kennedy in-law, Sargent Shriver, stepped into the running mate's shoes. It all just seemed to be a big mess, and none of that boded well for a Dem victory.
I bet Jackson and Lincoln are rolling over in their graves at how the two parties have hanged values. Jackson the conservative nationalist who did not care about minority values, and now his party is the total opposite. Lincoln who led the liberal leaders who wanted radical ideas to come to fruit in this country and are now the total opposite of their founders.
I agree. I thought that it was far too easy at first, but the opponents do take a decent bit of time to think of. Not that I would have gotten them all, but maybe 1 or 2 more.
ditto: great idea. speaking from uk, amazed at size of victory for RR and Nixon.....but yeah share of the vote would be interesting too. Good job mate.
The order is as presented. There has not been a constant number of electoral votes over the centuries. If you went by vote totals, Washington wouldn't be on the list, even though his election was unanimous.
It's interesting that Goldwater probably couldn't even get the nomination for low-level federal positions now. He was a member of the NAACP, supporting homosexuals serving the military (in the 60s!), voted for the first Civil Rights Act but against the other, pushed Nixon to resign...and did all of this as a Republican. He was a staunch opponent of government intervention, which is liberals' bread and butter these days. Hated the New Deal. Hated healthcare reform. He'd have no home in the current political climate.
1789 was hardly an electoral landslide. It's a complicated story involving a lot of boring politics, but there were 138 electoral votes cast, and Washington only received half. The popular vote, however, he won in a tremendous landslide. There are various justifications one might make as to why the candidate with essentially 100% of the popular vote received only 50% electoral vote, but the simplest way to explain this is that the electoral college in the USA is a nightmare.
Um, actually the simplest way to explain it is that each elector got 2 electoral votes, so it was only possible to receive 50% of the total number of electoral votes cast.
I don't get why everyone always says that Washington ran unopposed. Though it was pretty well understood that he was going to win, there were still other candidates. The vice president at the time was the runner-up. If Washington ran unopposed there would have been no vice president. And since each elector at the time was allowed to select two names to vote for, it's not really accurate to say that Washington won 69-0, either. In reality Washington won 69-34-9-6-6-4-3-2-2-1-1-1. If you want to count just the top two candidates, he won 69-34 against John Adams.
I think the logic is that among the 69 electors, everyone had two votes, and nobody could vote for the same person twice, so the most Washington could get was 69 votes, which he got. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that everyone used their "first" vote for Washington, and the second vote was really a vote for the vice president. I certainly don't know whether that's true, but it is correct to say the electors were unanimous in their support of Washington, because they all voted for him. It's easy to conflate "unanimous" with "69-0," even though they aren't the same under the weird rubric used in that election.
The reason for the GOP's dominance in that period is that the southern bloc that had been dependably Democratic from the days of Andrew Jackson finally abandoned the Democratic Party for good (so far) because LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act into law. The 1968 election was close because the formerly Democratic southern states may have left the Dems, but they didn't turn to the Republicans yet, instead running 3rd Party pro-segregation candidate George Wallace. By '72 the 'Solid South,' joined the GOP, where it remains, and it's why 3 elections from '72 and '84 are on this list, and just missing the cut is George H. W. Bush's dismantling of Michael Dukakis in 1988.
Given the State, Name a President
Presidential candidates from New York and Massachusetts
Presidents who lost a presidential election
People on the Most Presidential Tickets
Family Members on Presidential Tickets
Presidential Tickets Since 1948
And for a bigger challenge, Presidential Tickets Since 1796