Democrats or Republicans shut out of Electoral College in a post-1900 election

I can't see it happening in 1936--FDR lost both ME and VT by double digits. 1912? Maybe--Taft defeated TR in VT by only 1.91 points and defeated Wilson in UT by 4.91. UT is a hard nut to crack, though--the LDS Church leaders had made an agreement with Mark Hanna years earlier to support the GOP in return for guarantees the Church wouldn't be persecuted, and in 1912 they were still sticking to that. (By 1916 Mormons were convinced that the Democrats were not prejudiced against them, and Wilson carried UT that year.) Two more recent possibilities:

(1) 1964--Goldwater votes for the civil rights bill. As I wrote in a recent post:

" Wallace would run as a third party candidate and Goldwater might actually be shut out of the Electoral College! (Wallace carries AL, GA, LA, MS, and SC, and wins enough votes in AZ to give that closely contested state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidential_election_in_Arizona to LBJ.)

"Now you may reply that a Goldwater who voted for the civil rights bill might win some moderate Republicans who rejected him in OTL. True--but how many? His stances on issues like foreign policy and Social Security might easily be enough to alienate moderate Republicans even without his vote against the civil rghts bill."

(2) 1984--Jesse Jackson runs as a third party candidate (unlikely, I know), carries DC, and gets enough votes in MN to give that state to Reagan (who almost won it in OTL).
Without a third party with a strong appeal to Black voters, DC from 1964 on makes it impossible for the Democrats to be shut out of the Electoral College even in their worst years like 1972 or 1984. And after 1964 states like ID and UT were probably unloseable by the GOP.

I suppose another possibility is that if in 1952 or 1956 the Democrats insist on nominating a candidate who is so outspoken on civil rights that the party loses the whole South to either Ike (in the Upper South) or a neo-Dixiecrat party (in the Deep South) and the rest of the country to Ike. This is not too likely because even if the Democrats nominate Harriman instead of Stevenson, he is hardly likely to burn his bridges to the South. It is true that in 1956 Harriman criticized Stevenson as too cautious on civil rights, but at least one account suggests that this was just political posturing:

"Johnson regarded Harriman as nothing more than a cynical opportunist. During the preballoting jockeying, the New Yorker came to see Johnson. Jim Rowe was there. 'Now, Lyndon, you don't have to worry about me on this civil rights business,' Harriman said. 'All I have to do to keep my people happy is to make a few speeches. I will make the speech, but I'm not going to do anything about it.' After he departed, Johnson turned to Rowe and said, 'You liberals, you're great!'
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sb8W_Ba3jkkC&pg=PA309

I strongly doubt that if Harriman were actually nominated in 1952 (or for that matter 1956), he would write off the South any more than Stevenson did...
 
Perhaps 1984 in a scenario where DC isn't given its own electoral votes (or maybe absorbed into Virginia -- Reagan's lead there was too large for DC to make a difference) and Mondale loses his home state (he barely won it anyways)?
 
Perhaps 1984 in a scenario where DC isn't given its own electoral votes (or maybe absorbed into Virginia -- Reagan's lead there was too large for DC to make a difference) and Mondale loses his home state (he barely won it anyways)?
As I said, this is on the assumption that DC does get electoral votes--otherwise not only 1984 but 1972 are possibilities (although 1972 was not really that close in MA). Not 1980 or 1988, though: GA and RI both went for Carter by double digits in 1980, as did RI and IA (!) for Dukakis in 1988...

BTW, if DC is going to get "absorbed" into any state it will surely be MD (all VA's cessions to the District were returned before the ACW) which would make the larger MD go for Mondale in 1984 (in the absence of a large third party).
 
Last edited:
I suppose another possibility is that if in 1952 or 1956 the Democrats insist on nominating a candidate who is so outspoken on civil rights that the party loses the whole South to either Ike (in the Upper South) or a neo-Dixiecrat party (in the Deep South) and the rest of the country to Ike. This is not too likely because even if the Democrats nominate Harriman instead of Stevenson, he is hardly likely to burn his bridges to the South. It is true that in 1956 Harriman criticized Stevenson as too cautious on civil rights, but at least one account suggests that this was just political posturing:

"Johnson regarded Harriman as nothing more than a cynical opportunist. During the preballoting jockeying, the New Yorker came to see Johnson. Jim Rowe was there. 'Now, Lyndon, you don't have to worry about me on this civil rights business,' Harriman said. 'All I have to do to keep my people happy is to make a few speeches. I will make the speech, but I'm not going to do anything about it.' After he departed, Johnson turned to Rowe and said, 'You liberals, you're great!'
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sb8W_Ba3jkkC&pg=PA309

I strongly doubt that if Harriman were actually nominated in 1952 (or for that matter 1956), he would write off the South any more than Stevenson did...
The problem with this is that there was a strong push at the '52 Convention to strip voting rights from those delegates who came from States which had participated in the Dixiecrat bolt of '48, and it naturally resulted in a North vs. South contest that risked a second and even larger schism. The motion to do so seemed set to pass if I'm remembering correctly, but then Stevenson and a few others worked behind the scenes to get a number of the delegations to 'reconsider' their choice, Illinois being the first notable flip. Kefauver was a major backer of the motion, again if I'm remembering correctly, could be wrong, as it was by that point necessary for him to decrease the number of delegates required to win the nomination in order to do so, and the South as a whole outside of Tennessee wasn't ever going to support his candidacy.
 
I think we may need a significant alternate universe rather than tweaking existing scenarios.

What about a world in which the Agnew scandal isn't discovered until after Nixon's been forced out? Nixon hangs on until a House impeachment vote, resigning in October of 1974, between House and Senate votes. Then, Agnew takes over. News of his scandal breaks after the midterms; so let's say December.

Now, in 1975, Agnew knows that if he fills the VP slot with someone competent, he's toast. He refuses to make an appointment for months - ties it up through '75. Finally Congressional Republicans pressure him to appoint Ford because otherwise the presidency will flip. he does. He's impeached and removed from office around the end of 1975.

Ford pardons BOTH Nixon and Agnew. Beats Reagan for the nomination (is that possible ITTL?)

And then loses in a 50-state blow out to Southern Democrat Jimmy Carter.
 
I think we may need a significant alternate universe rather than tweaking existing scenarios.

What about a world in which the Agnew scandal isn't discovered until after Nixon's been forced out? Nixon hangs on until a House impeachment vote, resigning in October of 1974, between House and Senate votes. Then, Agnew takes over. News of his scandal breaks after the midterms; so let's say December.

Now, in 1975, Agnew knows that if he fills the VP slot with someone competent, he's toast. He refuses to make an appointment for months - ties it up through '75. Finally Congressional Republicans pressure him to appoint Ford because otherwise the presidency will flip. he does. He's impeached and removed from office around the end of 1975.

Ford pardons BOTH Nixon and Agnew. Beats Reagan for the nomination (is that possible ITTL?)

And then loses in a 50-state blow out to Southern Democrat Jimmy Carter.
No. If Ford beats Reagan in the primaries in such a situation (which I very much doubt) he will easily defeat Carter in states like UT and ID.
 
Last edited:
No. If Ford beats Reagan in the primarues in such a situation (which I very much doubt) he will easily defeat Carter in states like UT and ID.

This is a good point ... you'd probably need Reagan to go third-party in such a scenario, winning Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, and Arizona (states where Ford beat Carter by more than 15%)
 
Top