Will We Ever See Another 49-State Landslide Presidential Election?
Given the see-sawing of our national elections over the past 40 years, it might be hard to believe that a presidential candidate could ever win 49 of 50 states. But that is what happened in 1984, when Ronald Reagan’s triumphant re-election carried both liberal states (even Maryland and Massachusetts!) and conservative ones. Those of us who were adults at the time—only 25% of Americans alive today—witnessed a governing philosophy that empowered people over bureaucrats, communicated in a manner both realistic and optimistic.
I reflected on those times during a trip to California last week that included visits to the Reagan Library and to Rancho del Cielo, the ranch near Santa Barbara that President and Mrs. Reagan used as their western White House. These places feel frozen in time, particularly the modest ranch house with its 70s and 80s era TVs and kitchen appliances. They are remarkable oases testifying to the transcendent themes that swept Reagan into the White House, standing in marked contrast to the broken yet still beautiful state of California in which they are located.
Given the bitter divisions on our screens daily, it is hard to imagine an electoral map like 1984’s. But precedent shows you can go from bitter division to broad consensus in just a few years. Nixon’s 1972 49-state landslide came just four years after the tumultuous 1968, with its political assassinations, race riots, and violent anti-war protests. For such a landslide to happen, several factors must converge: the right messages on the economy and foreign policy, a communications-savvy candidate who can reconcile those messages with America’s ideals, and an opponent with the wrong messages or an inability to communicate a positive vision for the country. Simply put, the quality of candidates matters.
The conditions in both 2020 and 2024 had the potential to produce 40-state-plus landslides. The turmoil of the COVID pandemic, armed conflicts in Asia and the Middle East, and the rise of China all gave the right candidate an opening to offer coherent policy prescriptions that, if properly communicated, could flip enough moderately red and blue states to achieve a convincing rout that could shift the electorate for a decade or more. But neither party’s nominees had what it took to make that happen. Biden and Harris were not competing in places like Indiana (where Obama won in 2008), and Trump was not competing in places like Virginia.
Following the 2024 election, Pew Research took a poll asking voters whether they cast their ballot for their candidate or against the other. Of Trump’s 49% share, 40% were voting for him and 9% against Harris. Of Harris’s 47%, only 23% were actually for her—24% were voting against Trump. In other words, roughly a fifth of Trump’s voters were motivated by opposition to Harris, while fully half of Harris’s voters were motivated by opposition to Trump.
That only half of Harris’s voters were voting for her is unsurprising—she was a horrible candidate. She was the “border czar” that hardly ever visited the border as millions crossed. She wouldn’t have done anything different from spend-and-inflate Biden. And her only gift seemed to be constructing word salads that meant nothing. But that half of her voters chose her solely to stop Trump reveals how deeply they disliked him, enough to hand the most powerful office in the world to someone who was obviously lacking. Some of this may stem from Trump Derangement Syndrome, but there was likely significant play in the margins among voters simply put off by Trump’s irreverence, insensitivity, fluid transactionalism and art-of-the-deal hyperbole.
So is there anything to learn from Reagan’s landslides compared to today’s elections, where large numbers of voters cast ballots not for a candidate but to thwart one they dislike? Perhaps one lesson is that being visceral doesn’t work if you want a landslide. Reagan never shrank from tough rhetoric or bold colors in his speeches, but he did not use language that turned off the middle voters needed for convincing wins and long-lasting political change. That is an especially important point to consider as we approach critical midterm elections.
As you leave the Reagan Library and pass the 40th President’s final resting place, you encounter one last example of the rhetoric that propelled Reagan’s victories. On his grave is the inscription: “I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” Imagine a politician today using such language. We might be surprised by the reaction.
(Congressman Keith Rothfus served 3 terms in the U.S. House. He is a Notre Dame Law School graduate living near Pittsburgh where he and his wife raised their family.)
