Which Post-1900 Presidents Could've Surpassed LBJ's Share Of The Popular Vote?

[Zyobot]

Winning in a landslide of 486 electoral votes and a whopping 61.1% of the popular vote, President Lyndon Johnson's 1964 victory currently holds the record for the largest share of the popular vote won by a modern president--a tally that narrowly exceeded FDR's 1936 victory over Alf Landon, and was only rivaled by a handful of presidents since then. So, with that in mind, which post-1900 POTUS's could've surpassed LBJ's share of the popular vote, had circumstances been tweaked in their favor somewhat?

The only plausible contenders I can think of right now include an incumbent FDR, 1972 Richard Nixon and 1984 Ronald Reagan--all of whom 'merely' approached that proportion of the popular vote IOTL, although they all blew past him in the Electoral College at least once. Maybe also Warren G. Harding in 1920, though I know less about him than post-WW2 presidents.

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

[stevep]

Jun 10, 2020 15:26:29 GMT Zyobot said:

Winning in a landslide of 486 electoral votes and a whopping 61.1% of the popular vote, President Lyndon Johnson's 1964 victory currently holds the record for the largest share of the popular vote won by a modern president--a tally that narrowly exceeded FDR's 1936 victory over Alf Landon, and was only rivaled by a handful of presidents since then. So, with that in mind, which post-1900 POTUS's could've surpassed LBJ's share of the popular vote, had circumstances been tweaked in their favor somewhat?

The only plausible contenders I can think of right now include an incumbent FDR, 1972 Richard Nixon and 1984 Ronald Reagan--all of whom 'merely' approached that proportion of the popular vote IOTL, although they all blew past him in the Electoral College at least once. Maybe also Warren G. Harding in 1920, though I know less about him than post-WW2 presidents.

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

  Zyobot,

  Possibly Teddy Roosevelt if he had won the Republican nomination in 1912?  Although checking between then his Progressives and the formal Republicans only just exceeded 50% of the vote so probably not.

  Steve

[Zyobot]

Jun 10, 2020 16:27:15 GMT stevep said:

Jun 10, 2020 15:26:29 GMT Zyobot said:

Winning in a landslide of 486 electoral votes and a whopping 61.1% of the popular vote, President Lyndon Johnson's 1964 victory currently holds the record for the largest share of the popular vote won by a modern president--a tally that narrowly exceeded FDR's 1936 victory over Alf Landon, and was only rivaled by a handful of presidents since then. So, with that in mind, which post-1900 POTUS's could've surpassed LBJ's share of the popular vote, had circumstances been tweaked in their favor somewhat?

The only plausible contenders I can think of right now include an incumbent FDR, 1972 Richard Nixon and 1984 Ronald Reagan--all of whom 'merely' approached that proportion of the popular vote IOTL, although they all blew past him in the Electoral College at least once. Maybe also Warren G. Harding in 1920, though I know less about him than post-WW2 presidents.

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

  Zyobot ,

  Possibly Teddy Roosevelt if he had won the Republican nomination in 1912?  Although checking between then his Progressives and the formal Republicans only just exceeded 50% of the vote so probably not.

  Steve

Alright, then. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the answers in the AH.com version of this thread? The first person to reply here has suggested than an assassination is the main catalyst for a more lopsided election, though they did make exception to Carter crushing Nixon if he refused to resign in an alternate 1976.

[stevep]

Jun 10, 2020 16:35:23 GMT Zyobot said:

Jun 10, 2020 16:27:15 GMT stevep said:

  Zyobot ,

  Possibly Teddy Roosevelt if he had won the Republican nomination in 1912?  Although checking between then his Progressives and the formal Republicans only just exceeded 50% of the vote so probably not.

  Steve

Alright, then. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the answers in the AH.com version of this thread? The first person to reply here has suggested than an assassination is the main catalyst for a more lopsided election, though they did make exception to Carter crushing Nixon if he refused to resign in an alternate 1976.

  Dramatic events such as an assassination or Nixon's criminality often make for big impacts on the following poll so their likely to have an impact.  Can Nixon run in 1976 through as he's already been elected in 1968 and 1972?

  One other possibility that comes to mind.  George W Bush was a somewhat unpopular president and only sneaked in in 2000.  If the 9-11 attack hadn't occurred but he had had some disaster, possibly finding a less popular excuse to go to war with Saddam could he lose very heavily in 2004 against the right opponent?  I was think of Hurricane Katrina initially but that would be too late as it was 2005, unless such a storm came a year earlier?

[Zyobot]

Jun 10, 2020 16:46:58 GMT stevep said:

Jun 10, 2020 16:35:23 GMT Zyobot said:

Alright, then. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the answers in the AH.com version of this thread? The first person to reply here has suggested than an assassination is the main catalyst for a more lopsided election, though they did make exception to Carter crushing Nixon if he refused to resign in an alternate 1976.

  Dramatic events such as an assassination or Nixon's criminality often make for big impacts on the following poll so their likely to have an impact.  Can Nixon run in 1976 through as he's already been elected in 1968 and 1972?

  One other possibility that comes to mind.  George W Bush was a somewhat unpopular president and only sneaked in in 2000.  If the 9-11 attack hadn't occurred but he had had some disaster, possibly finding a less popular excuse to go to war with Saddam could he lose very heavily in 2004 against the right opponent?  I was think of Hurricane Katrina initially but that would be too late as it was 2005, unless such a storm came a year earlier?

Sorry, I must’ve misspoken when I said that Carter would’ve crushed Nixon in an alternate 1976. Rather, I meant to convey that a Nixon who doubles down and serves the rest of his term would leave the GOP nominee to face a landslide defeat against Carter. At least, that’s how I interpret what the person who originally proposed that was saying.

In regards to more contemporary examples like George Bush, this Gallup article I found actually gives him pretty decent ratings even before 9/11, shortly after which they skyrocketed before tumbling into 1980 Jimmy Carter territory during his second term. As for whatever electoral trouncing happens in an alternate scenario, I think that depends on the details in question. However, I still feel—though I don’t have hard evidence of this—like the country is too divided to pull off another 1984, barring a rather different paradigm in which popular consensus is more united taking shape in a TL where 9/11 never happens.

[stevep]

Jun 10, 2020 18:55:01 GMT Zyobot said:

Jun 10, 2020 16:46:58 GMT stevep said:

  Dramatic events such as an assassination or Nixon's criminality often make for big impacts on the following poll so their likely to have an impact.  Can Nixon run in 1976 through as he's already been elected in 1968 and 1972?

  One other possibility that comes to mind.  George W Bush was a somewhat unpopular president and only sneaked in in 2000.  If the 9-11 attack hadn't occurred but he had had some disaster, possibly finding a less popular excuse to go to war with Saddam could he lose very heavily in 2004 against the right opponent?  I was think of Hurricane Katrina initially but that would be too late as it was 2005, unless such a storm came a year earlier?

Sorry, I must’ve misspoken when I said that Carter would’ve crushed Nixon in an alternate 1976. Rather, I meant to convey that a Nixon who doubles down and serves the rest of his term would leave the GOP nominee to face a landslide defeat against Carter. At least, that’s how I interpret what the person who originally proposed that was saying.

In regards to more contemporary examples like George Bush, this Gallup article I found actually gives him pretty decent ratings even before 9/11, shortly after which they skyrocketed before tumbling into 1980 Jimmy Carter territory during his second term. As for whatever electoral trouncing happens in an alternate scenario, I think that depends on the details in question. However, I still feel—though I don’t have hard evidence of this—like the country is too divided to pull off another 1984, barring a rather different paradigm in which popular consensus is more united taking shape in a TL where 9/11 never happens.

  Zyobot,

  Regretfully I would have to agree with that bit.  US politics is more toxic than UK politics was during the Thatcher period and there doesn't seem to be a way that it can end, at least in the near term.  In part I fear because with modern information technology its very easy for bigots and hate merchants to spread rumours and falsehoods which entrench mutual mistrust and division.

  Steve

[Zyobot]

Jun 11, 2020 10:38:19 GMT stevep said:

Jun 10, 2020 18:55:01 GMT Zyobot said:

Sorry, I must’ve misspoken when I said that Carter would’ve crushed Nixon in an alternate 1976. Rather, I meant to convey that a Nixon who doubles down and serves the rest of his term would leave the GOP nominee to face a landslide defeat against Carter. At least, that’s how I interpret what the person who originally proposed that was saying.

In regards to more contemporary examples like George Bush, this Gallup article I found actually gives him pretty decent ratings even before 9/11, shortly after which they skyrocketed before tumbling into 1980 Jimmy Carter territory during his second term. As for whatever electoral trouncing happens in an alternate scenario, I think that depends on the details in question. However, I still feel—though I don’t have hard evidence of this—like the country is too divided to pull off another 1984, barring a rather different paradigm in which popular consensus is more united taking shape in a TL where 9/11 never happens.

  Zyobot ,

  Regretfully I would have to agree with that bit.  US politics is more toxic than UK politics was during the Thatcher period and there doesn't seem to be a way that it can end, at least in the near term.  In part I fear because with modern information technology its very easy for bigots and hate merchants to spread rumours and falsehoods which entrench mutual mistrust and division.

  Steve

Yeah, that’s probably had it’s own role to play in today’s political divisiveness. I do, however, think that there are likely more factors involved there (often along generational and perhaps also geographic fault lines in addition to the most oft-discussed ones). But for now, I digress.

One other possibility I thought of, as it pertains to this scenario, might be Warren G. Harding going up against Woodrow Wilson in 1920, in which the latter somehow lives long enough to run for a third term and secures the Democratic nation instead of James Cox. Considering that he essentially campaigned against Wilson IOTL (even though he wasn’t running), I wonder if Harding would enjoy even more success than he actually did? In which case, perhaps he’d win those extra few hundred-thousand votes needed to surpass LBJ’s 61.1% popular vote share, even if only by a narrow margin.

[Zyobot]

Having checked on the AH.com version of this thread again, I see that participants have added some new candidates to the list. LBJ running again in 1968 is one that I probably should have thought of myself, though maybe that depends on him smoothly withdrawing from Vietnam and going up against a GOP war hawk who wants to reverse that decision?

There was also mention of Herbert Hoover winning by even larger margins in 1928 by taking Alabama, Georgia, Massachusetts and Rhode Island (which brings his electoral vote count up to 493). Of course, if the 1929 Stock Market Crash (or some equivalent) still happens on his watch, he'd probably lose the next election in a landslide.

For someone who redeemed the Republicans' image after World War Two, a few people suggested General Eisenhower as a possible 60%+ popular vote winner. Which makes sense with some tweaks, considering that he's a top-tier war hero and all. Whereas Stevenson...doesn't offer much competition, at least in the final analysis of OTL 1952 (and 1956 as well).

[Zyobot]

Given that he maintains the record for the largest electoral vote count of any POTUS by absolute numbers (525 of them, to be exact), I wonder if there’s any way for Reagan to enjoy an even more lopsided victory in 1984? That is, by surpassing 61.1% of the popular vote instead of ‘merely’ coming close with about 58.8%, though whether that translates to him also taking Minnesota and becoming the first to sweep all fifty states, I don’t know. The only way I can think of boosting Reagan even further is screwing Mondale even more than IOTL, something that I’m unsure how to achieve for the purposes of this discussion.

[dayton3]

Jun 10, 2020 16:46:58 GMT stevep said:

Jun 10, 2020 16:35:23 GMT Zyobot said:

Alright, then. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the answers in the AH.com version of this thread? The first person to reply here has suggested than an assassination is the main catalyst for a more lopsided election, though they did make exception to Carter crushing Nixon if he refused to resign in an alternate 1976.

  Dramatic events such as an assassination or Nixon's criminality often make for big impacts on the following poll so their likely to have an impact.  Can Nixon run in 1976 through as he's already been elected in 1968 and 1972?[Quote/]

Nixon would not have been eligible to be elected in 1976.

[Zyobot]

Jul 10, 2020 4:17:03 GMT dayton3 said:

Jun 10, 2020 16:46:58 GMT stevep said:

  Dramatic events such as an assassination or Nixon's criminality often make for big impacts on the following poll so their likely to have an impact.  Can Nixon run in 1976 through as he's already been elected in 1968 and 1972?[Quote/]

Nixon would not have been eligible to be elected in 1976.

I know that. That was just me misspeaking during my initial post on the subject.

[Zyobot]

I remembering seeing a living Robert Kennedy as a potential contender for an extreme popular vote blowout, albeit in much-modified circumstances detailed here. What do others think of that general assessment?

[Zyobot]

This one's probably both ASB and needlessly cruel to the Democrats, but I wonder how big Reagan would win if Carter ran again in 1984 and somehow clinched the Democratic nomination? For starters, I assume that Jimmy loses at least as hard as Walter Mondale did, maybe to the point where Reagan receiving at least sixty percent of the popular vote (and maybe also taking Minnesota as well) shouldn't be ruled out completely.

[Zyobot]

One of the more interesting proposed blowout ideas I've seen is Vice President George H.W. Bush going up against Jesse Jackson as the Democratic nominee in 1988. Someone even suggested that the corresponding election map, though normally implausible, would probably be a 523 to 15 electoral-vote pwning--with Jackson only taking Iowa and Hawaii, while Herbert Walker sweeps everywhere else.

[Zyobot]

As a more remote idea first brought to the table in another thread, what about Dwight Eisenhower going up against a surviving FDR whose overconfidence gets the better of him as he runs for yet another term? Due to a combination of voter fatigue, his increasingly obvious health problems, and the GOP probably attacking him over conceding too much to Stalinist Russia, somehow I imagine that his luck will have run out and that he'll be easy prey for a popular war hero and GOP-redeeming New Dealer like Eisenhower.

Whether Ike would sweep with over sixty percent of the popular vote seems unlikely to me--even though his victory against a frail and magically insensible Roosevelt is practically assured, record-breaking blowout or not. But if I could watch this ATL Election Night unfold and saw Ike achieve precisely that, odds are I wouldn't be completely flabbergasted.