Which Post-1900 Presidential Candidates Could've Surpassed LBJ's Popular Vote Share?

[Zyobot]

Winning in a landslide of 486 electoral votes and 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 presidential candidates--whether they actually held office or not--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 LBJ 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

 

[durante]

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 presidential candidates--whether they actually held office or not--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 LBJ 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

If someone more popular than LBJ was JFK's VP, he'd surpass his vote total.

The landslide was due to "awkwardness in opposing the slain Presidents policies" plus the relative unpopularity of Barry Goldwater.

Hard to get passed LBJs '64 totals without an assassination. Maybe GHW Bush '84? If Reagan is killed? Carter '76 if Nixon doesnt resign?

 

[troosvelt_68]

It depends somewhat on how much hand waving you can do

In 1920 Harding got 60.3% of the vote even though the South (which represented about 20% of overall vote) was artificially Democratic.

If you have a way for Southern voters to support the candidate they actually agreed with on more issues then there is a good chance Harding does it in 1920 (he only needed another 200k)

Nixon came very close in 1972 (60.8%) so it wouldn't take much (about 300,000 more votes) to boost him past.

Similarly FDR got 60.8% in 1936 so he could have done it with just another 100,000 votes

 

[David T]

Harding just might have surpassed LBJ's popular vote percentage if not for the rumors he had African American ancestors. (I don't say those rumors affected many voters--though they likely cost him KY--but 60.3 percent isn't that far from 61.1 percent.)

 

[Zyobot]

Harding just might have surpassed LBJ's popular vote percentage if not for the rumors he had African American ancestors. (I don't say those rumors affected many voters--though they likely cost him KY--but 60.3 percent isn't that far from 61.1 percent.)

That’s an interesting possibility. I wonder if Harding could’ve gotten similar results to what you’re proposing if Woodrow Wilson lived long enough to run again in 1920 (and somehow secured the Democratic nomination). Given that Harding essentially campaigned against Wilson IOTL (even though he wasn’t running), maybe Harding would be even more successful doing so against the man himself?

 

[Mikestone8]

Harding just might have surpassed LBJ's popular vote percentage if not for the rumors he had African American ancestors

Or if the Democrats had nominated Wilson for s third term.

 

[Zyobot]

Or if the Democrats had nominated Wilson for s third term.

Yeah, that’s what I suggested in the post above yours. By what (semi) precise proportions do you guys think Harding could win by in this scenario, other than him still surpassing LBJ’s 1964 popular vote count by probably narrow margins?

 

[gaitskellitebevanite]

Eisenhower in 1956 was polling over 60% until shortly before the election when Stevenson regained some support.
Carter in 1976 was polling in the high 50s/low 60s at the time of the Democratic convention, had he not lost momentum through the autumn he could have won a landslide.
Clinton in 1996 could have broken the 60% mark had the GOP nominated Buchanan and had Perot not run again.

 

[dcharles]

Obligatory AHC: Make LBJ surpass his '64 total in '68.

 

[Zyobot]

Obligatory AHC: Make LBJ surpass his '64 total in '68.

...By how much, and what circumstances are likely to lead to him doing so ? Maybe if he actually withdraws from Vietnam and the transition proceeds smoothly, some Republican war hawk who wants to reverse that decision runs in 1968—only to get walloped by LBJ harder than Goldwater was?

 

[Grey Wolf]

No 22nd Amendment - Clinton on his 3rd term?

Of course, no 22nd amendment would probably have had an impact before that? Truman? Eisenhower?

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Elections where the candidate got 53% or higher (plus Clinton)

1904: Roosevelt got 56.4%
1920: Harding got 60.3%
1924: Coolidge got 54%, with previously-Republican Bob LaFollette getting 16.6%
1928: Hoover got 58.2%
1932: Roosevelt got 57.4%
1936: Roosevelt got 60.8%
1940: Roosevelt got 54.7%
1944: Roosevelt got 53.4%
1952: Eisenhower got 55.2%
1956: Eisenhower got 57.4%
1964: Johnson got 61.1%
1972: Nixon got 60.7%
1984: Reagan got 58.8%
1988: HW Bush got 53.4
1996: Clinton got 49.2% (Perot got 8.4%)

Honestly, the rarity of sweeping victories post-2000 is the weird thing.

Harding 1920, Roosevelt 1936, Nixon 1972 were all paper-thin close to doing better than Johnson's record.

Hoover 1928, Roosevelt in 1932, Eisenhower in 1956, and perhaps Reagan in 1984 could also do the job.

If Reagan dies in office, HW might ride the sympathy into breaking LBJ's record.
If the Gulf War happened closer to the 1992 election, HW could perhaps sweep massively with that 90%+ approval rating.

There's a theory that Clinton under performed in 1996 because everybody expected him to win, so turnout was weak. Perhaps there's a combo of (A) somebody weaker than Dole being GOP nominee, (B) the Democrats focus harder on turnout with the goal of getting as big a down-ballot win as possible, (C) Clinton offers something to Perot so Perot campaigns for him gets him past LBJ's number.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

No 22nd Amendment - Clinton on his 3rd term?

Of course, no 22nd amendment would probably have had an impact before that? Truman? Eisenhower?

Clinton was the first president actually constrained by the amendment.

Truman and LBJ were too unpopular. Nixon was removed from Office (de facto). Kennedy was shot. Eisenower and Reagan were too old. Carter, Ford, and HW Bush lost reelection.

So you'd have very few butterflies until Clinton goes for round three.

 

[Zyobot]

Clinton was the first president actually constrained by the amendment.

Truman and LBJ were too unpopular. Nixon was removed from Office (de facto). Kennedy was shot. Eisenower and Reagan were too old. Carter, Ford, and HW Bush lost reelection.

So you'd have very few butterflies until Clinton goes for round three.

Assuming that electoral history turns out largely like it did IOTL leading up to that point, by what margins is third-term Clinton likely to win by, both in the popular vote and Electoral College?

Just spitballing right now, I imagine that with a proportion of votes that exceeds LBJ’s 61.1%, he’d win well over 400 electoral votes in the process (very likely more than Bush Sr. in 1988). How the exact map would look on Election Night 2000, however—other than featuring a sea of blue with a handful of red islands every now and then—I don’t know.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Assuming that electoral history turns out largely like it did IOTL leading up to that point, by what margins is third-term Clinton likely to win by, both in the popular vote and Electoral College?

Just spitballing right now, I imagine that with a proportion of votes that exceeds LBJ’s 61.1%, he’d win well over 400 electoral votes in the process (very likely more than Bush Sr. in 1988). How the exact map would look on Election Night 2000, however—other than featuring a sea of blue with a handful of red islands every now and then—I don’t know.

Probably this.

 

[Zyobot]

Probably this.

View attachment 555979

...Woah. That’s a lot of blue, and enough electoral votes to put Clinton in the top echelons of Electoral College victories leading up to that point. And, of course, probably the new record-holder for post-1900 popular vote victories since his proportion would surpass that of 1964 LBJ’s. Unless, of course, other presidents wind up winning by even larger blowouts than Clinton does (1920 Warren G. Harding, 1936 FDR, 1972 Richard Nixon and 1984 Ronald Reagan once again come to mind for me).

In regards to George H.W. Bush crushing it in 1992, should the Gulf War have occurred closer to that point in time, precisely how much is he likely to sweep by? I ask in terms of both margin of victory and spitballing the absolute number of voters, maybe also the Electoral College while I’m at it.

 

[Vinization]

Herbert Hoover scores an even bigger victory in 1928, winning Alabama, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Georgia? He would get 493 electoral votes in total.

 

[David T]

Clinton was the first president actually constrained by the amendment.

Truman and LBJ were too unpopular. Nixon was removed from Office (de facto). Kennedy was shot. Eisenower and Reagan were too old. Carter, Ford, and HW Bush lost reelection.

So you'd have very few butterflies until Clinton goes for round three.

Eisenhower was bothered by the possibility of JFK becoming president (he called him a "playboy" and if he had to be succeeded by a Democratic president would have preferred it be someone more "mature" like LBJ or Symington) and by the prospect of the Democratic "spenders" in Congress being unchecked by a presidential veto. So if he were eligible to run and doubted Nixon's electability, it is entirely possible that he would have run in 1960 despite age and health--and if he did so he would certainly have won.

(As for Truman and LBJ, they were not constrained by the amendment for different reasons. Truman was specifically exempted by the amendment, and LBJ was eligible to run again in 1968 because he had served less than half of JFK's term.)

 

[David T]

Assuming that electoral history turns out largely like it did IOTL leading up to that point, by what margins is third-term Clinton likely to win by, both in the popular vote and Electoral College?

He had high job approval ratings but very low personal approval ratings. I doubt very much that he could win, and it is absurd to suggest he could win by a landslide.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

(As for Truman and LBJ, they were not constrained by the amendment for different reasons. Truman was specifically exempted by the amendment, and LBJ was eligible to run again in 1968 because he had served less than half of JFK's term.)

Yes, my point is amendment or not it wouldn't have much of an effect on OTL.