Reagan's 1980 landslide victory produced a massive Republican gains in the congressional elections, including a blowout in the Senate races. In comparison, LBJ's far greater victory in 1964 produced less impressive coattails.
Despite Nixon's landslide reelection in 1972, Republicans failed to make Senate gains; in fact, Democrats picked up two seats. There was little corelation between presidential and Senate results.
Are "coattails" just an overrated idea?
Kind of.
It really depends on the nature of the election in question.
The Elections of 1964 and 1972 happened in (politically) stable environments. There wasn't any real voter outrage at either particular political party. That, and the fringe nature of the tickets in those years kind of discouraged the typical out and proud campaigning usual in many elections.
Contrast that with say 1920, 1932, and 1980 where you see an electoral landslide (emphasis on electoral since Reagan did little worse than Franklin Pierce did in the popular vote) with strong congressional gains for the president elect's party. In these elections not only does the incumbent, but the incumbent party, pisses off the public enough to demand a very strong mandate across the board.
The disaster of 1920 was very much due to an ignorant Democratic administration and it's nominee who endorsed policies and made statements that pretty much guaranteed that it's loyal urban voters in the north either stayed home or jumped ship to support the GOP. To this day I believe there probably has never been a presidential election that one party dropped the ball as much as the Democratic Party did in 1920. There is a reason why guys like Alfred E. Smith lost races by only 2% while the national ticket lost by thirty points in the Northeast.
1932 was pretty much a referendum on 12 years of Republican rule and the failure of Republican rule to get the country out of one of the worst economic catastrophes in history. Everything about the crisis was pretty much blamed on Republican policies. The fact that the GOP Convention renominated Hoover in 1932 showed the nation that the GOP wasn't willing to change it's approach. I'm not saying I believe FDR and the New Dealers were right but that the people perceived the Republican Party as a whole to have failed the nation after they renominated Hoover as akin to endorsing his policies are President that seemed to make things worse.
1980 was kind of like 1932. There wasn't as near as much anger against the Democratic Party but people were yearning for a real change from the status quo. Carter was seen as a weak and meek incumbent. Reagan was considered a conservative firebrand, but a lot of people perceived him to be a "competent radical" as opposed to Carter's "incompetent moderate" approach. In other words, there really weren't Reagan "coattails" but really more outrage at perceived Democratic failure from 1977-1981.
So really there aren't coattail elections......it's more like there are OUTRAGE! elections that result in massive losses for parties that piss off Planet American Voter.
