AHC: A US Presidential Candidate Wins All 538 Electoral Votes

With a POD no earlier than 1964, have a US presidential candidate achieve total, flawless victory in the electoral college. As in, the opposition doesn't win a single state or electoral vote.

Hard mode: No Nixon vs. McGovern 1972, Reagan vs. Carter 1980, or Reagan vs. Mondale 1984
 
Last edited:
If you butterfly away the DC vote amendment, then ‘84 gets ya there with minor changes. Say a Mondale gaffe about his home state.

If you don’t, then I think the best shot is a narrow Ford victory in ‘76 followed by everything going pear-shaped in the Middle East, stagflation, etc... Then 1980 could be a Democratic Reagan equivalent and 1984 be their clean sweep.
 
Yeah, Reagan could have won all 50 states and not won DC (with its three electoral votes) in 1984 because, as someone on this board said (IIRC) the Democrats could put anyone up and DC would go for the Democrat...
 
Hard-liners seize Russia in1991, events lead to World War III, Bush gets all the votes in 1992 leading the U.S. in the war.
 
If you butterfly away the DC vote amendment, then ‘84 gets ya there with minor changes. Say a Mondale gaffe about his home state.

If you don’t, then I think the best shot is a narrow Ford victory in ‘76 followed by everything going pear-shaped in the Middle East, stagflation, etc... Then 1980 could be a Democratic Reagan equivalent and 1984 be their clean sweep.

But Reagan didn't make a clean sweep in 1980 and the Democrats won't in this alt-1980, no matter how poorly Ford does. Reagan will get the GOP nomination (Ford, having served more than 1 1/2 terms will not be eligible) and enough voters will believe he will do better than Ford for him to easily get the votes of Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Nebraska, Alaska, Wyoming, etc.

As for 1984, even with the DC vote, Mondale can be shut out of the Electoral College if Jesse Jackson runs as a third party candidate. But that is not the same thing as a unanimous Electoral College of course, because while Jackson can plausibly win DC, Reagan can't, even in a three-way race (he got 13.73 percent of the vote there in 1984 in OTL). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election Anyway, the 23rd Amendment was ratified in 1961, so doing away with it is too early a POD for the OP.
 
I'll use my 4% approval rating scenario from another thread.

Bush resigns in 2006 due to suspicion that he orchestrated the 9/11 commission coverup of Prince Bandar's involvement. President Cheney dies before he can appoint a new VP.

President Hastert runs for reelection in 2008, with the Abramoff scandal and sagging economy as headwinds. The financial meltdown happens on schedule. His child molesting and hush money are exposed two weeks before the election. He withdraws and electors can vote for the new nominee, but the ballots still say Hastert.
 
Actually, I can't believe I didn't think of this scenario...

National Popular Vote Compact. Mostly blue and purple states.

Republican wins the popular vote, so the red states (nonparticipants) are red. The blue states vote for the national popular vote winner so they're red as well.
 
In 1972, have George McGovern keep Thomas Eagleton as his running mate instead of replacing him with Sargent Shriver. Richard Nixon wins Massachusetts.
 
In 1972, have George McGovern keep Thomas Eagleton as his running mate instead of replacing him with Sargent Shriver. Richard Nixon wins Massachusetts.

There's still the District of Columbia. (And I'm not so sure it would even cost McGovern Massachusetts. "So he had problems with mental illness and overcame them--why should that disqualify him?" might be a common attitude there--to people who think about the vice-presidency at all.)
 
In 1972, have George McGovern keep Thomas Eagleton as his running mate instead of replacing him with Sargent Shriver. Richard Nixon wins Massachusetts.

True but DC probably still votes for McGovern since DC would vote for a reanimated skunk if it had a D after its name.

I’m thinking LBJ in 1964 if LBJ is a little more on the ball and Goldwater is more unhinged.
 
I'll use my 4% approval rating scenario from another thread.

Bush resigns in 2006 due to suspicion that he orchestrated the 9/11 commission coverup of Prince Bandar's involvement. President Cheney dies before he can appoint a new VP.

President Hastert runs for reelection in 2008, with the Abramoff scandal and sagging economy as headwinds. The financial meltdown happens on schedule. His child molesting and hush money are exposed two weeks before the election. He withdraws and electors can vote for the new nominee, but the ballots still say Hastert.

Heavily Republican states will still vote flor Hastert in the knowledge that it's really a vote for the new nominee.
 
Actually, I can't believe I didn't think of this scenario...

National Popular Vote Compact. Mostly blue and purple states.

Republican wins the popular vote, so the red states (nonparticipants) are red. The blue states vote for the national popular vote winner so they're red as well.

The Compact would not necessarily rule out faithless electors, though. In fact, one commentator thinks it is constitutional precisely because it does not rule out faithless electors!

"For purposes of a Compact Clause analysis, the determination of
the electors’ roles is crucial, particularly when considering the NPVC
from an ex ante perspective. When viewed ex post, the NPVC looks
unconstitutional, as the exact effect contemplated by those who argue
against the NPVC does, in fact, occur. That is, pledged delegates vote
for the winner of the national popular vote, the winner of that vote
becomes president, and the non-signatory states will have had no say
in deciding how the president should be determined.249 However, when
viewed ex ante, the NPVC’s text appears to be doing something far different,
as it has no binding mechanism on the actual electors, but only
on the state legislatures.250 In the New Jersey Assembly Appropriations
Committee’s Statement that follows that state’s version of the NPVC,
the legislature presumes that the bill “requires” electors from signatory
states to vote for the national popular vote winner.251 However,
the bill’s text itself does not provide for any penalties if electors choose
to vote differently.252 Any binding mechanism on the actual electors
comes from the state enforcement statutes, and likely would survive
federal preemption.253

"As the Ray Court made clear, neither the Constitution nor any federal
statute mandates that the electors vote for the candidate whom
they are pledged for.254 Only custom has made such the practice.255
Thus, under an ex ante framing of the NPVC, the agreement to allocate
electors in a uniform manner only gives the signatory states a chance
to control the Electoral College, not a definitive guarantee that they
will control it.256 However, if all the signatory states subsequently adopt
criminal penalties or other statutes that bind the electors, then the ex
ante perspective might not have as much bite.257 While the NPVC as a
whole might be ripe for a court to evaluate prior to an election,258 the
constitutionality of a pledged delegate’s lack of adherence to the NPVC
and/or state enforcement statutes might present different questions
either independent of the NPVC or determinative of the NPVC’s
constitutionality.259..."

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american...eferer=&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=lpb
 
Top