JFK got MURDERED in Dallas!

[TDAS04]

No, I'm not talking about what you're probably thinking of.

In the 1960 election, JFK lost Dallas County, Texas, by 25% to Nixon; yet, he still managed to when the state.

OK, that was bad.  My attempt at dark humor aside, Kennedy's poor showing in Dallas County was part of what seems to have been a larger pattern that existed in much of the South at the time; a reverse urban-rural divide in which Republican inroads in the region found more success in the metropolitan areas, while the rural areas were made up more heavily of loyal, partisan, Democrats.

In addition to Dallas, Kennedy also lost Harris County (Houston), TX, but by a less extreme 6 points.  Also, Georgia was JFK's second best state, in spite of just squeaking by in Fulton and DeKalb Counties (Atlanta area).

Still, his thrashing in Dallas County seems to have been exceptionally bad.  His worst state was Nebraska, but even there he only lost by 24 points.  Any thoughts on why Dallas hated Kennedy so much?  Was it just more anti-Catholic than other cities?

[Indy Texas]

No, I'm not talking about what you're probably thinking of.

In the 1960 election, JFK lost Dallas County, Texas, by 25% to Nixon; yet, he still managed to when the state.

OK, that was bad.  My attempt at dark humor aside, Kennedy's poor showing in Dallas County was part of what seems to have been a larger pattern that existed in much of the South at the time; a reverse urban-rural divide in which Republican inroads in the region found more success in the metropolitan areas, while the rural areas were made up more heavily of loyal, partisan, Democrats.

In addition to Dallas, Kennedy also lost Harris County (Houston), TX, but by a less extreme 6 points.  Also, Georgia was JFK's second best state, in spite of just squeaking by in Fulton and DeKalb Counties (Atlanta area).

Still, his thrashing in Dallas County seems to have been exceptionally bad.  His worst state was Nebraska, but even there he only lost by 24 points.  Any thoughts on why Dallas hated Kennedy so much?  Was it just more anti-Catholic than other cities?

1. Black population large enough to make white people angry/uneasy/resentful, but not large enough to impact the election results.
2. No organized labor presence.
3. No "white ethnic" Irishmen or Italians.
4. The Catholic thing was indeed a problem. Back then, other than in South Texas and San Antonio, being a Texan meant either being Baptist, Methodist or Episcopalian.

To get a better understanding of the kind of places Texas and Dallas were at that time, I'd suggest reading The Big Rich by Bryan Burrough. Some of the old-school oilmen from the '40s and '50s would probably criticize the Koch Brothers for being too liberal. (H. L. Hunt used to argue that people's votes should be weighted based on how much they paid in income taxes, effectively preventing anyone who was too poor to pay income taxes from having the right to vote.)

[old timey villain]

No, I'm not talking about what you're probably thinking of.

In the 1960 election, JFK lost Dallas County, Texas, by 25% to Nixon; yet, he still managed to when the state.

OK, that was bad.  My attempt at dark humor aside, Kennedy's poor showing in Dallas County was part of what seems to have been a larger pattern that existed in much of the South at the time; a reverse urban-rural divide in which Republican inroads in the region found more success in the metropolitan areas, while the rural areas were made up more heavily of loyal, partisan, Democrats.

In addition to Dallas, Kennedy also lost Harris County (Houston), TX, but by a less extreme 6 points.  Also, Georgia was JFK's second best state, in spite of just squeaking by in Fulton and DeKalb Counties (Atlanta area).

Still, his thrashing in Dallas County seems to have been exceptionally bad.  His worst state was Nebraska, but even there he only lost by 24 points.  Any thoughts on why Dallas hated Kennedy so much?  Was it just more anti-Catholic than other cities?

1. Black population large enough to make white people angry/uneasy/resentful, but not large enough to impact the election results.
2. No organized labor presence.
3. No "white ethnic" Irishmen or Italians.
4. The Catholic thing was indeed a problem. Back then, other than in South Texas and San Antonio, being a Texan meant either being Baptist, Methodist or Episcopalian.

To get a better understanding of the kind of places Texas and Dallas were at that time, I'd suggest reading The Big Rich by Bryan Burrough. Some of the old-school oilmen from the '40s and '50s would probably criticize the Koch Brothers for being too liberal. (H. L. Hunt used to argue that people's votes should be weighted based on how much they paid in income taxes, effectively preventing anyone who was too poor to pay income taxes from having the right to vote.)

Any kind of southern white resentment towards black people would not have equaled more votes for the Republican party back then. That's a direct result of the southern strategy, which was not in play during the 1960 election. If anything, Republicans did better in urban areas of the south at the time because people there tended to be a little more progressive. Democrats were seen as the top choice of rural, conservative southerners. Remember, JFK was very quiet on the issue of civil rights at the time so he could hold onto that vote and LBJ had not yet adopted a progressive stance on the issue- he was seen as more of a defender of segregation.

[freepcrusher]

Dallas at the time was really no different than a lot of other metropolises of that time - SoCal (particularly OC), Phoenix, Denver etc. It was a sunbelt boomtown fueled by the Military Industrial Complex and oil. Big time stronghold of the John Birch Society if I recall and the local media was virulently right wing (H.L. Hunt, Edwin Walker). Also lacking in the left wing southern and eastern europeans that NY City had.  

[All Along The Watchtower]

No, I'm not talking about what you're probably thinking of.

In the 1960 election, JFK lost Dallas County, Texas, by 25% to Nixon; yet, he still managed to when the state.

OK, that was bad.  My attempt at dark humor aside, Kennedy's poor showing in Dallas County was part of what seems to have been a larger pattern that existed in much of the South at the time; a reverse urban-rural divide in which Republican inroads in the region found more success in the metropolitan areas, while the rural areas were made up more heavily of loyal, partisan, Democrats.

In addition to Dallas, Kennedy also lost Harris County (Houston), TX, but by a less extreme 6 points.  Also, Georgia was JFK's second best state, in spite of just squeaking by in Fulton and DeKalb Counties (Atlanta area).

Still, his thrashing in Dallas County seems to have been exceptionally bad.  His worst state was Nebraska, but even there he only lost by 24 points.  Any thoughts on why Dallas hated Kennedy so much?  Was it just more anti-Catholic than other cities?

1. Black population large enough to make white people angry/uneasy/resentful, but not large enough to impact the election results.
2. No organized labor presence.
3. No "white ethnic" Irishmen or Italians.
4. The Catholic thing was indeed a problem. Back then, other than in South Texas and San Antonio, being a Texan meant either being Baptist, Methodist or Episcopalian.

To get a better understanding of the kind of places Texas and Dallas were at that time, I'd suggest reading The Big Rich by Bryan Burrough. Some of the old-school oilmen from the '40s and '50s would probably criticize the Koch Brothers for being too liberal. (H. L. Hunt used to argue that people's votes should be weighted based on how much they paid in income taxes, effectively preventing anyone who was too poor to pay income taxes from having the right to vote.)

Any kind of southern white resentment towards black people would not have equaled more votes for the Republican party back then. That's a direct result of the southern strategy, which was not in play during the 1960 election. If anything, Republicans did better in urban areas of the south at the time because people there tended to be a little more progressive. Democrats were seen as the top choice of rural, conservative southerners. Remember, JFK was very quiet on the issue of civil rights at the time so he could hold onto that vote and LBJ had not yet adopted a progressive stance on the issue- he was seen as more of a defender of segregation.

I would chalk it up to urban areas being wealthier and having more Northern transplants who had little to no sympathy for Yellow-Dog Southern politics.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Dallas at the time was really no different than a lot of other metropolises of that time - SoCal (particularly OC), Phoenix, Denver etc. It was a sunbelt boomtown fueled by the Military Industrial Complex and oil. Big time stronghold of the John Birch Society if I recall and the local media was virulently right wing (H.L. Hunt, Edwin Walker). Also lacking in the left wing southern and eastern europeans that NY City had.  

This too.

[TDAS04]

Thank you for the analysis, guys.

I suspected that a low Catholic population and wealth were major factors.  I just that it was interesting that this was the same place where Kennedy would later be killed (literally).

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

It was more conservative back then.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It was the beginning of the end of cold war democrat. Lbj last one. So, tx became an oil state and a gop stronghold. The dems had to shift to ohio and calif to make up for loss of tx ev. Thats why RF campaigned so hard in calif.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, I'm not talking about what you're probably thinking of.

In the 1960 election, JFK lost Dallas County, Texas, by 25% to Nixon; yet, he still managed to when the state.

OK, that was bad.  My attempt at dark humor aside, Kennedy's poor showing in Dallas County was part of what seems to have been a larger pattern that existed in much of the South at the time; a reverse urban-rural divide in which Republican inroads in the region found more success in the metropolitan areas, while the rural areas were made up more heavily of loyal, partisan, Democrats.

In addition to Dallas, Kennedy also lost Harris County (Houston), TX, but by a less extreme 6 points.  Also, Georgia was JFK's second best state, in spite of just squeaking by in Fulton and DeKalb Counties (Atlanta area).

Still, his thrashing in Dallas County seems to have been exceptionally bad.  His worst state was Nebraska, but even there he only lost by 24 points.  Any thoughts on why Dallas hated Kennedy so much?  Was it just more anti-Catholic than other cities?

1. Black population large enough to make white people angry/uneasy/resentful, but not large enough to impact the election results.
2. No organized labor presence.
3. No "white ethnic" Irishmen or Italians.
4. The Catholic thing was indeed a problem. Back then, other than in South Texas and San Antonio, being a Texan meant either being Baptist, Methodist or Episcopalian.

To get a better understanding of the kind of places Texas and Dallas were at that time, I'd suggest reading The Big Rich by Bryan Burrough. Some of the old-school oilmen from the '40s and '50s would probably criticize the Koch Brothers for being too liberal. (H. L. Hunt used to argue that people's votes should be weighted based on how much they paid in income taxes, effectively preventing anyone who was too poor to pay income taxes from having the right to vote.)

Any kind of southern white resentment towards black people would not have equaled more votes for the Republican party back then. That's a direct result of the southern strategy, which was not in play during the 1960 election. If anything, Republicans did better in urban areas of the south at the time because people there tended to be a little more progressive. Democrats were seen as the top choice of rural, conservative southerners. Remember, JFK was very quiet on the issue of civil rights at the time so he could hold onto that vote and LBJ had not yet adopted a progressive stance on the issue- he was seen as more of a defender of segregation.

Actually the Southern Strategy predated even 1960 by several decades. You can consider the Southern Strategy as simply a project by, for and off Nixon, in which case it is nearly impossible to claim it as being responsible for the long term shift of the South between 1952 and 2008, or you view it as a multi-decade project to break the GOP out of its two region isolation, that incorporated race issues at key points to either get a consideration or make the party the lesser of two evils. That could be busing in 1968, or God/Guns/Gays in 1994. These voters didn't even finish realligning until the 2000's, in era when you had a Republican President going to all kinds of lengths to appeal to minorities.

In the 1950's, both party's were still trying to play both sides of the issue to some extent, while slowly trying to move the country away from the Segregation of the South. That is why Eisenhower was rather cautious on the issue, though he did pass to weaker civil rights bills and used the 101st in Little Rock. Ike had won some states in the South and the GOP wanted to keep them as a quick glance down ballot showed they had a big problem in the Northeast and Midwest, but the GOP was the party of Lincoln and it just couldn't abandon the issue for politically gain (though Goldwater would do so for ideology in 1964), nor would the Northernern and Western Suburbanites go for a GOP that was the party of Theodore Bilbo. It was their desire (as well as that of the Northern Democrats) to have the country move on after the Civil War that ended the efforts in 1870's and then their openness to have the country more forward after World War II that enabled any successes of the Civil Rights movement to happen at all (Hence why even Conservative Republicans voted for the CRA in 1964, not just the Liberals). The Democrats were being pulled in two directions by the Humphreys in the North and the Russell/Tallmadges of the South. Kennedy and LBJ were both seeking to run for President in 1960 and thus were aiming to please both sides, since it would be difficult without Southern states to win the Presidency (Truman had proven you could do some pro-Civil Rights things and still win enough of the South to get elected, not that you could lose the South entirely and still win. No Democrat has won without at least three Southern States).

The GOP of the 1950's and 1960's was a suburbs operation, save for parts of the rural North and Appalachia that had been in the GOP since the Civil War and had been inherited from the Whigs, Federalists, or Anti-Masonic parties prior to the War. This was because the party's base consisted of upper and middle class voters, which were now fleeing the cities in the north. In the South, they still lived in Dallas, Charlotte, or Houston, and were being joined by Northerners seeking jobs in the growth industries of the Sunbelt at the time. Both provided potential for the GOP in the South. I wouldn't call them Progressive, maybe slighlty more so on civil rights, but not in general. Prior to the 1950's, you had two Democratic parties and both groups were racist. The Pro-business "Bourbons" and the Populist/Progressives who had the support of either poor farmers or laborers or both. By the middle of the 1950's, the former had been losing out to the latter in many states. If anything the initial GOP support in the South came from disaffected members of the previous group. These voters in the South were a natural fit for the GOP as well, provided they could overcome or look past the Civil War legacy and stop voting based on race. It is undeniable that beginning in the 1950's, some of them began this process (keep in mind that the most Republican of the Southern states in the 1950's, voted for LBJ in 1964, then went back to Nixon in 1968). A more recent example is that in 1991, David Duke lost the two most GOP counties in the state (which were suburbs of NOLA and Shreveport, respectively), as well as most of the counties in the Baton Rouge area (another more loyal bastion of GOP support in the state, then the Bubba vote up north that supported Duke, yet voted for Democrats locally and even for Clinton). Yet these defectors from Duke were among the few of the minimal number of counties that Jindal won in his narrow loss in 2003.

This is one transition that gets ignored in the "CRA made the racists join the GOP in 1964, thus causing the south to reallign". If that is the case why did VA, TN, and KY vote Republican in 1952-1960, but not 1964? Even if they were still racist but had other priorities, it makes the case they they were voting based on other priorities either economic or social by then and staying in 1950 on race was falling down list in importance. It is impossible to deny that atleast some components of the GOP's improvement in the region was the result of some voters moving on and getting with the times (possibly in stages if not all at once. Just voting for the party of Lincoln was an acceptance that things were changing), just as much as that it was the result of Republicans from the Midwest and Northeast moving in, or some racists deciding to look past legacy and the bulk of civil rights issues, to vote for the lesser of two evils going forward. You don't switch states from voting 90-10 Democratic into 60-40 Republican territory over the course of 50 years on a one trick pony.