Who Had The Greatest Democratic Landslide Of All Time?

[MIKESOWELL]

I only see two serious options for this question, FDR and LBJ. Who do you pick?

[Asian Nazi]

FDR's was more impressive because the Democratic Party was basically dying just a few years before and the party machinery had yet to even rebuild itself in large parts of the country.

Johnson's was impressive in a different way, though, as he managed to win constituencies that the Democrats haven't been able to appeal to before or since.

[Mr. Smith]

LBJ under-performed considering who Goldwater was, how he became President, and the nature of his campaign: I mean he really should have cracked 60% in California for crying out loud. He also should have been able to win Arizona, which still had a decent Democratic Party then.

So I'll go with FDR.

However, Franklin Pierce in 1852 is also worth a mention on that front.

[Hydera]

Popular vote obviously went to LBJ, but IDK how LBJ's landslide was the greatest since he lost the deep south while FDR won everything but two New England states in 1936.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

FDR.  Landon didn't even break double digits in the electoral vote.

[Podgy the Bear]

Roosevelt in 1936--winning everything except Maine and Vermont.  And the Republicans didn't even elect 100 members in the House and were below 20 in the Senate.

Johnson's 61% is the highest percentage--but he was running in the high 60s and even into the 70s for most of 1964.  Some of the ethics issues such as Bobby Baker and Walter Jenkins caused some erosion of support for him.

[YaBoyNY]

LBJ underperformed when compared to some polls which showed he was leading with like 80% at one point.

[Sir Mohamed]

Actually a tie, but tilz LBJ. He got most PV votes, 61.1%. A record that will, I think, remain unmatched forever.

LBJ under-performed considering who Goldwater was, how he became President, and the nature of his campaign: I mean he really should have cracked 60% in California for crying out loud. He also should have been able to win Arizona, which still had a decent Democratic Party then.

So I'll go with FDR.

However, Franklin Pierce in 1852 is also worth a mention on that front.

With 50% of the vote? He got 85% of the electoral vote; something that FDR outperformed twice (1932 and 1936) and tied once; in 1940. And 1944 was just slightly less (81%). Pierce 1852 is very simular to Reagan 1980 in terms of PVs and EVs.

[MIKESOWELL]

I think Pierce won the popular vote in 1852 with something like 51.4% of the vote to 44 percent for his opponent, which is considerable but not landslide proportions. I believe that Taft in 1908 (yes, I know he was a Republican) did a bit better percentage wise in spread than Pierce. The electoral vote was considerable, 254 to 42, but it pales in comparison to the Roosevelt and LBJ landslides. Heck, Andrew Jackson did much better in the popular vote than Pierce.

[MIKESOWELL]

This is something that I have always wanted to say about Lyndon Johnson's popular majority record of 61.1 percent. Yes, it is incredible. Yes, it is almost a certainty that this mark will remain unchallenged. However, there was very little opposition that year to the major party vote that year. I think that minor parties only made up 0.5 percent of the total vote. That is extremely paltry in any election year. By comparison, in 1972 minor parties were 1.8 percent of the total vote, in 1936 2.7 percent, and in 1920 5.5 percent. This may be a bad comparison, but it's sort of like if a team scored 52 points against the Giants defense last year, compared to a team scoring 45 points against the Broncos defense this past year. Sure, the other team scored more points, but did not face the level of opposition and resistance that the Broncos opponent did. I might be reaching a bit, but do anyone see my point?

[Sir Mohamed]

I think Pierce won the popular vote in 1852 with something like 51.4% of the vote to 44 percent for his opponent, which is considerable but not landslide proportions. I believe that Taft in 1908 (yes, I know he was a Republican) did a bit better percentage wise in spread than Pierce. The electoral vote was considerable, 254 to 42, but it pales in comparison to the Roosevelt and LBJ landslides. Heck, Andrew Jackson did much better in the popular vote than Pierce.

Even Obama did better in the PV than Pierce in 2008 and 2012.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

LBJ's percentage was only marginally higher than FDR's who sweept the entire country save for two small states remaining from the Republican equivalent of the Solid South.

Also: lol at people saying Pierce.