home
Menu
Create
Random
0
0
0
thumbnail

U.S. Electoral College Landslides

Name the candidates who won or lost the U.S. Presidential election by the largest margins, and also their opponents.
According to Wikipedia
Quiz by joez
Rate:
Featured Quiz
Last updated: December 22, 2019
You have not attempted this quiz yet.
More quiz info >>
First submittedOctober 27, 2016
Times taken13,620
Average score55.6%
Rating4.13
Quiz and answer stats >>
Friends stats >>
3:00
Enter answer here
0
 / 18 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
Electoral Vote
Year
President
Opponent
132-0
1792
George Washington
none
69-0
1789
George Washington
none
231-1
1820
James Monroe
effectively none
523-8
1936
Franklin Roosevelt
Alf Landon
525-13
1984
Ronald Reagan
Walter Mondale
520-17
1972
Richard Nixon
George McGovern
162-14
1804
Thomas Jefferson
Charles Pinckney
212-21
1864
Abraham Lincoln
George B. McClellan
489-49
1980
Ronald Reagan
Jimmy Carter
486-52
1964
Lyndon Johnson
Barry Goldwater
472-59
1932
Franklin Roosevelt
Herbert Hoover
457-73
1956
Dwight Eisenhower
Adlai Stevenson
Needle41
+4
Level 28
Nov 7, 2016
Crazy that Nixon did so well. I guess that might be part of why Watergate was such a big deal.
Packerswin14
+4
Level 83
Jan 8, 2017
A landslide electoral college victory isn't necessarily a landslide victory. A candidate can win 50% of the vote but do so very evenly, while the loser gets 47%-- across the board in every state, too. I doubt that would happen in today's polarized USA, however, the states are far less homogenous than they used to be.
TenThousand
+3
Level 76
Jan 8, 2017
Would you also be able to add the actual percentages the winning and losing candidate got? It would be interesting to compare the actual vote numbers with the electoral vote numbers.
Needle41
+10
Level 28
Apr 3, 2017
Indeed, but winning 49/50 states is an incredible feat, regardless of the margin.
luxint
+2
Level 65
May 19, 2017
good point
Hdny42
+15
Level 63
May 19, 2017
Richard Nixon's victory in 1972 was massive, and it heralded a new political alignment where Republican candidates won every election from 1972-1988 in gigantic landslides except for Jimmy Carter's close victory over Gerald Ford 1976, which is an outlier because of Watergate.

The reason for the GOP's dominance in that period is that the southern bloc that had been dependably Democratic from the days of Andrew Jackson finally abandoned the Democratic Party for good (so far) because LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act into law. The 1968 election was close because the formerly Democratic southern states may have left the Dems, but they didn't turn to the Republicans yet, instead running 3rd Party pro-segregation candidate George Wallace. By '72 the 'Solid South,' joined the GOP, where it remains, and it's why 3 elections from '72 and '84 are on this list, and just missing the cut is George H. W. Bush's dismantling of Michael Dukakis in 1988.

irish41
+3
Level 59
May 19, 2017
That was fascinating to read. I'm not being snarky, either. I wasn't born when all that happened, and I hadn't really heard how/why things changed so dramatically. Thanks for the mini history lesson! :)
loya
+2
Level 58
May 19, 2017
Very interesting, indeed. Thumbs up!
Froststar101
+3
Level 74
Sep 14, 2020
Yes, you are generally correct, but it's worth recognizing that the Democratic party was not entirely shut out of the south; Clinton and Gore were both southerners, and the 1992 ticket won Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Kentucky (4 out of 10 former Confederate states). Florida has been a swing state for the past 20 years, while Virginia is proving to have become solidly Democratic at the state and national level. My point is that it's not impossible for Democrats to win in the south even at the national level - Obama won Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida and Biden may be able to repeat that feat.
wiifly
+2
Level 59
Sep 14, 2020
The thing is both the Republican and Democratic Party have basically morphed into parties that are not at all the same as the time of the Civil War or even after Reformation. For example, The Republican party was very pro-civil rights as it started out, but by the 1960s when the civil rights movement came about, they were almost al against it.
inquizitor1
+1
Level 57
Feb 23, 2023
Yeah, sure. Thats why most of the Republican caucus, North or South, voted for each civil rights bill.
ander217
+4
Level 75
Sep 14, 2020
I remember '72. One candidate had been killed in the '68 election which was still on our minds. Many Democrats and Republicans were closer to the center back then, but in '72 the Dems chose a very liberal McGovern as their candidate. It had been assumed Ted Kennedy would be the candidate but Chappaquiddick ended that, opening the field. McGovern wound up with the most primary delegates, but the Dems made a lot of rule changes at their convention which ticked a lot of supporters off, and in the end McGovern won the nomination but there were votes cast for dozens of candidates, and choosing a running mate turned into a fiasco. Less than three weeks after announcing Tom Eagleton as the VP running mate, it came out that Eagleton had failed to disclose that he received electroshock therapy for depression and Eagleton stepped down. Kennedy in-law, Sargent Shriver, stepped into the running mate's shoes. It all just seemed to be a big mess, and none of that boded well for a Dem victory.
bburroughs
+1
Level 61
Aug 12, 2021
I bet Jackson and Lincoln are rolling over in their graves at how the two parties have hanged values. Jackson the conservative nationalist who did not care about minority values, and now his party is the total opposite. Lincoln who led the liberal leaders who wanted radical ideas to come to fruit in this country and are now the total opposite of their founders.
inquizitor1
+1
Level 57
Feb 23, 2023
Lincoln was the moderate cowed by the congressional Radicals.
TomArcher
+3
Level 17
Sep 15, 2020
The joke was always that Nixon won by a landslide, but after Watergate, you couldn't find anyone that admitted voting for him.
BobSaget
+2
Level 78
Sep 17, 2020
My father jokes that he's the only person who voted for Nixon and the only person who saw 'Deep Throat.'
Gamer1162
+4
Level 60
Jan 6, 2017
Thanks Mr. Beat for helping me learn about elections and much more. Didn't know a Youtube channel would help me to complete a quiz
mf3
+3
Level 87
Jan 6, 2017
I think adding another minute would help this considerably.
GrandMo
+2
Level 71
Jan 12, 2017
I agree. I thought that it was far too easy at first, but the opponents do take a decent bit of time to think of. Not that I would have gotten them all, but maybe 1 or 2 more.
bluesdjben
+2
Level 74
May 19, 2017
I agree.
kalbahamut
+5
Level 82
May 19, 2017
oh man I thought this was going to be easy until I realized we had to name their opponents too
kalbahamut
+2
Level 82
May 19, 2017
should have gotten more of those than I did, though.
LarryLovage
+3
Level 55
May 19, 2017
I feel ya
SouthwestChief
+2
Level 72
May 19, 2017
Seconded
Hdny42
+2
Level 63
May 19, 2017
Greaf quiz idea!
luxint
+2
Level 65
May 19, 2017
ditto: great idea. speaking from uk, amazed at size of victory for RR and Nixon.....but yeah share of the vote would be interesting too. Good job mate.
TenThousand
+2
Level 76
May 19, 2017
These elections aren't listed in order of electoral votes! Bit confused what the order is.
snix
+3
Level 55
May 19, 2017
The order is as presented. There has not been a constant number of electoral votes over the centuries. If you went by vote totals, Washington wouldn't be on the list, even though his election was unanimous.
Moosefight
+2
Level 60
May 19, 2017
It seems pretty clear that it's by whose opponent got the least electoral votes.
Arp2600
+2
Level 86
May 19, 2017
No, it is by ratio, otherwise Jefferson would be one place higher.
DonTheLamplighter
+2
Level 84
Jul 23, 2017
It will be a snowy day on a summer night before I remember Charles Pinckney. That's just not gonna stick.
cpgatbyu
+4
Level 85
Sep 14, 2020
The instructions seem a little redundant.
Froststar101
+2
Level 74
Sep 14, 2020
If you like U.S. presidential quizzes, check out these quizzes!

Given the State, Name a President

Presidential candidates from New York and Massachusetts

Presidents who lost a presidential election

People on the Most Presidential Tickets

Family Members on Presidential Tickets

Froststar101
+2
Level 74
Sep 14, 2020
Also, there is:

Presidential Tickets Since 1948

And for a bigger challenge, Presidential Tickets Since 1796

jmellor13
+3
Level 67
Sep 14, 2020
It's interesting that Goldwater probably couldn't even get the nomination for low-level federal positions now. He was a member of the NAACP, supporting homosexuals serving the military (in the 60s!), voted for the first Civil Rights Act but against the other, pushed Nixon to resign...and did all of this as a Republican. He was a staunch opponent of government intervention, which is liberals' bread and butter these days. Hated the New Deal. Hated healthcare reform. He'd have no home in the current political climate.
kalbahamut
+3
Level 82
Sep 14, 2020
He was a real small-government conservative. The current GOP is not conservative. It's the pro-authoritarian cult of Trump.
NV1
+2
Level 51
Sep 14, 2020
Surprised that so few people got Alf Landon.
Froststar101
+2
Level 74
Sep 14, 2020
"As Maine goes, so goes Vermont"
ander217
+2
Level 75
Sep 14, 2020
I only missed one and I tried Pinkley for it - so close, but just a few too many cobwebs in the way of the brain files to pull it out.
bostjan
+3
Level 72
Sep 15, 2020
1789 was hardly an electoral landslide. It's a complicated story involving a lot of boring politics, but there were 138 electoral votes cast, and Washington only received half. The popular vote, however, he won in a tremendous landslide. There are various justifications one might make as to why the candidate with essentially 100% of the popular vote received only 50% electoral vote, but the simplest way to explain this is that the electoral college in the USA is a nightmare.
Froststar101
+2
Level 74
Sep 15, 2020
Um, actually the simplest way to explain it is that each elector got 2 electoral votes, so it was only possible to receive 50% of the total number of electoral votes cast.
kalbahamut
+2
Level 82
Sep 15, 2020
I don't get why everyone always says that Washington ran unopposed. Though it was pretty well understood that he was going to win, there were still other candidates. The vice president at the time was the runner-up. If Washington ran unopposed there would have been no vice president. And since each elector at the time was allowed to select two names to vote for, it's not really accurate to say that Washington won 69-0, either. In reality Washington won 69-34-9-6-6-4-3-2-2-1-1-1. If you want to count just the top two candidates, he won 69-34 against John Adams.
jmellor13
+2
Level 67
Sep 16, 2020
I think the logic is that among the 69 electors, everyone had two votes, and nobody could vote for the same person twice, so the most Washington could get was 69 votes, which he got. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that everyone used their "first" vote for Washington, and the second vote was really a vote for the vice president. I certainly don't know whether that's true, but it is correct to say the electors were unanimous in their support of Washington, because they all voted for him. It's easy to conflate "unanimous" with "69-0," even though they aren't the same under the weird rubric used in that election.
jmellor13
+3
Level 67
Sep 16, 2020
But either way, you're right that he didn't run unopposed.
kalbahamut
+2
Level 82
Sep 17, 2020
Unanimous, yes. Unopposed? No. Pretty sure that Adams would have preferred to win.
Save Your Progress

Copyright H Brothers Inc, 2008–2024

Contact Us | Go To Top | View Mobile Site