Ever looked at a modern election map and thought, "Man, this country is divided"? You aren't wrong. But if you think a few hundred thousand votes in Pennsylvania is a blowout, you need to see what happened in 1936. Or 1984. Or basically any time before the 24-hour news cycle turned every precinct into a battlefield.
Honestly, answering what was the most lopsided presidential election depends on how you measure "winning." Do you care about the popular vote? The Electoral College? Or maybe the weirdest one of all—the guy who literally ran against nobody?
The 1820 "Participation Trophy" Election
If we’re being technical, the most lopsided presidential election wasn't even a contest. In 1820, James Monroe ran for re-election during what historians call the "Era of Good Feelings."
The Federalist Party was basically dead. They didn't even bother nominating a candidate. Monroe won every single state. He got 231 out of 235 electoral votes. The only reason it wasn't a 100% unanimous shutout is because one elector from New Hampshire, William Plumer, decided to cast his vote for John Quincy Adams instead. Legend says he did it because he wanted George Washington to remain the only person ever elected unanimously, though his actual diary suggests he just thought Monroe was a mediocre administrator.
But let's be real. Winning against nobody is easy. The "real" lopsided victories happen when there’s a real opponent on the other side getting absolutely crushed.
1936: FDR Destroys Alf Landon
When people ask about the most lopsided presidential election in the modern era, 1936 is usually the gold standard. Franklin D. Roosevelt was at the height of his New Deal powers. The Great Depression was still brutal, but people felt like FDR was at least doing something.
His opponent was Alf Landon, the Governor of Kansas. Landon wasn't a bad guy, but he was bringing a knife to a tank fight.
The results were genuinely embarrassing for the GOP. FDR took 46 states. Landon took two. Just two: Maine and Vermont. This led to the famous political quip, "As Maine goes, so goes Vermont."
💡 You might also like: Tom Bradley: Why the Man Behind the LAX Terminal Matters More Than Ever
- FDR Electoral Votes: 523 (98.5%)
- Alf Landon Electoral Votes: 8
- Popular Vote Margin: 24.2%
Imagine winning by 11 million votes when the total population was way smaller. It was a total wipeout. Landon didn't just lose; his party was essentially evicted from the national conversation for a decade.
The 1984 Reagan Map That Looks Like a Sea of Red
If you’ve ever seen a map of the 1984 election, you might think your screen is broken. It is almost entirely red. Ronald Reagan was riding a wave of "Morning in America" optimism and a booming economy. He was 73 years old, facing off against Walter Mondale, who had the unenviable task of telling Americans he was going to raise their taxes.
Reagan won 49 states.
Mondale won his home state of Minnesota by a measly 3,761 votes. If a stiff breeze had blown through Minneapolis that Tuesday, Reagan might have had a 50-state sweep. Mondale also won the District of Columbia, but that’s a given.
What’s wild about 1984 is that while Reagan had the most electoral votes in history (525), his popular vote margin (18.2%) was actually smaller than FDR’s in 1936. It shows how the Electoral College can turn a big win into a legendary one.
💡 You might also like: Elizabeth Warren and Pete Hegseth: What Really Happened Behind the Scenes
Why don't we see this anymore?
You've probably noticed that lately, elections are decided by a few thousand people in Wisconsin or Georgia. We don't get 49-state sweeps. Why?
- Hyper-partisanship: People identify more with their "team" now. In 1984, millions of "Reagan Democrats" crossed party lines. Today, that’s almost unheard of.
- Media Bubbles: Back then, everyone watched the same three news networks. Now, we all live in different digital realities.
- The "Big Sort": People are moving to places where their neighbors think like them. Blue cities are bluer; red rural areas are redder.
Comparing the "Big Three" Blowouts
Let's put these side-by-side because the numbers are just staggering.
In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) actually beat Reagan’s popular vote percentage. He pulled 61.1% of the vote against Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was seen as too radical for the time, and the "Daisy" ad—which basically suggested Goldwater would start a nuclear war—did its job. LBJ won 486 electoral votes to Goldwater’s 52.
Then there’s Richard Nixon in 1972. Before the Watergate scandal broke wide open, Nixon was incredibly popular. He took 49 states against George McGovern. McGovern only won Massachusetts and D.C.
It’s kinda funny looking back. The three biggest landslides of the last 60 years (LBJ, Nixon, Reagan) were followed by massive political shifts or scandals. Maybe winning too big makes a party overreach?
Actionable Insights: How to Spot a Landslide
If you're watching the next election cycle and wondering if we'll ever see the most lopsided presidential election record broken, keep an eye on these three indicators:
- Consumer Confidence: In almost every landslide (1936, 1964, 1972, 1984), the economy was either recovering rapidly or booming. People vote with their wallets.
- The "Likability" Gap: Landslides happen when one candidate is seen as a grandfatherly or stable figure (Reagan, Ike, FDR) while the other is painted as "extreme" or "out of touch."
- Third-Party Spoilers: In lopsided years, third parties usually vanish. When a major candidate is dominant, they suck all the oxygen out of the room, leaving no space for "protest" votes.
Realistically, we are unlikely to see a 1984-style map again in our lifetime. The country is too "locked in." But knowing the history helps you realize that the "unprecedented" division we feel today is actually a return to the norm—those mid-century landslides were the historical outliers.
If you want to dive deeper into how these maps changed, your next step should be to look at county-level shift maps from 1980 to 1984. It reveals exactly where the "Reagan Democrat" was born and why that specific demographic basically doesn't exist in the same way today. You can also research the 1912 election to see what happens when a landslide is caused by a three-way split—it's the polar opposite of 1820.