Which party was more dead:Democrats in the late 1860s or GOP in mid 1930s

[OSR stands with Israel]

Vote

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Both were in a bad place, but the GOP was objectively worse off in the 1930s than the Democrats were in the late 1860s. Consider:

1868
Rep (Grant): 52.7%     Dem (Seymour): 47.3%    Margin: ~300,000 Votes

versus

1936
Rep (Landon): 36.5%     Dem (Roosevelt): 60.8%     Margin: ~11,000,000 Votes

The pv margins are what's important here: considering the baggage weighing down the Democratic party (the stigma of having opposed the Civil War + Andrew Johnson's disastrous tenure), Seymour ran a very strong campaign and came close to defeating Grant, the biggest war hero since Andrew Jackson. By contrast, Landon barely even registered against FDR, loosing by close to 11 million votes. Even accounting for the massive population growth between 1868 and 1936, there's hardly a comparison. Had anyone but Grant been the nominee in 1868, Seymour might very well have won.

The reason for this is that, during Reconstruction, the Democrats were able to remain competitive by appealing to racist fears of "miscegenation" that made many Northerners hesitant to vote Republican. That they had opposed the war made them distasteful, but people ultimately vote their own interests . It was much easier for Democrats to convince Northern whites that it was in their interest to keep freed slaves from coming North and taking their jobs than it was for Republicans to convince Americans that it was in their interest to vote away the New Deal.

EDIT: Also to be considered is how long it took for each of these parties to regain dominance after their initial defeats. Samuel Tilden, the first Democrat to win the popular vote in the post-Civil War era, did so in 1876, 16 years after Abraham Lincoln was elected president. By contrast, the first Republican to win the popular vote after FDR's first victory - Dwight Eisenhower - did so in 1952, 20 years later. That Eisenhower was a war hero who probably would have won no matter which party he ran for, while Tilden was a relative newcomer to the national stage, further supports this.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Both were in a bad place, but the GOP was objectively worse off in the 1930s than the Democrats were in the late 1860s. Consider:

1868
Rep (Grant): 52.7%     Dem (Seymour): 47.3%    Margin: ~300,000 Votes

versus

1936
Rep (Landon): 36.5%     Dem (Roosevelt): 60.8%     Margin: ~11,000,000 Votes

The pv margins are what's important here: considering the baggage weighing down the Democratic party (the stigma of having opposed the Civil War + Andrew Johnson's disastrous tenure), Seymour ran a very strong campaign and came close to defeating Grant, the biggest war hero since Andrew Jackson. By contrast, Landon barely even registered against FDR, loosing by close to 11 million votes. Even accounting for the massive population growth between 1868 and 1936, there's hardly a comparison. Had anyone but Grant been the nominee in 1868, Seymour might very well have won.

The reason for this is that, during Reconstruction, the Democrats were able to remain competitive by appealing to racist fears of "miscegenation" that made many Northerners hesitant to vote Republican. That they had opposed the war made them distasteful, but people ultimately vote their own interests . It was much easier for Democrats to convince Northern whites that it was in their interest to keep freed slaves from coming North and taking their jobs than it was for Republicans to convince Americans that it was in their interest to vote away the New Deal.

EDIT: Also to be considered is how long it took for each of these parties to regain dominance after their initial defeats. Samuel Tilden, the first Democrat to win the popular vote in the post-Civil War era, did so in 1876, 16 years after Abraham Lincoln was elected president. By contrast, the first Republican to win the popular vote after FDR's first victory - Dwight Eisenhower - did so in 1952, 20 years later. That Eisenhower was a war hero who probably would have won no matter which party he ran for, while Tilden was a relative newcomer to the national stage, further supports this.

Which party was in a worse position in congress and the states legislators

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The situation for the Democrats stemmed from two elections, 1864 and 1866 being overwhelmingly for the Republicans. The Democrats had demographics on their side in both circumstances and what kept them alive was also what propelled them to such heights in the 1930's.

The Republicans had the freedman's vote, which helped but the Radicals had scared away the Irish and it was clear that the Democrats had the upper hand in the North or at least in New York and so forth.

Once the Democrats regained the South and suppressed the black and scalawag vote, the GOP found itself in a rather precarious position that would not be resolved until the collapse of the economy under a Democratic President. Republicans also had trade policy as a way to appeal to working class voters, which it lacks today obviously.


By the 1930, the Republicans had attained this enormous wave of victories piled on top of victories. However, the demographics were dire for them. Millions of second generation immigrants were going to come of age and vote during one of the worst economic depressions in history. So a group already favorable to Demcorats became even more overwhelmingly so. The Republican machines in Philadelphia and Chicago would crack apart under the weight of this age wave. And of course down South, any gains the GOP had made in 1928 were erased and the South was once again Solid in its support for Democrats in the New Deal era.

I would say Republicans in the 1930's.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Democrats were arguably more dead in the 1920s then they were in the 1860s, which is why it's ironic how fast so much of the country shifted from one party to the other in such a short period.

[Lincoln Republican]

The Dems, otherwise known as the pro slavery party.

[StateBoiler]

I'd answer Republicans in the '30s, but I didn't realize til recently that the Horace Greeley candidacy in 1872 was a "Liberal Republican" nomination that the Democrats chose to co-nominate.

[Skill and Chance]

Democrats were arguably more dead in the 1920s then they were in the 1860s, which is why it's ironic how fast so much of the country shifted from one party to the other in such a short period.

Yes, the Democratic low pretty clearly came later.  I would say 1896-1908, when it looked to many like Bryan was leading Dems off a cliff, was also worse for them than 1868-1880.  The latter were polarizing elections.  The Republicans just managed to string together Bush/Obama sized wins with an assist from the electoral college thrown in.