1952- the election that broke the 'solid South'

[Beet]

Much is made of the Dixiecrat revolts of 1948 and 1964. But looking back on the raw vote totals on this site, I've always noticed that there was a massive Republican vote surge in 1952 which doesn't get the attention it deserves b/c Stevenson narrowly carried the Deep South. Eisenhower got 56% in Virginia, 50% in Tennessee, 46% in North Carolina, 49% in South Carolina, 44% in Arkansas, 30% in Georgia, 35% in Alabama, 40% in Mississippi, 55% in Florida, and 47% in Louisiana. So in no way could the South have been considered a 'one party' region in 1952.

For instance, the pattern of Virginia voting GOP began in 1952. Prior to that, it had only voted Republican twice- once in 1872, by less than 1%, and once in 1928, against Al Smith. After 1952, it has voted Republican every time except 1964, until 2008. The Democratic vote actually surged by 34% in 1952. More new Democrats entered the electorate to vote for Adlai Stevenson in Virginia than ever had for any previous candidate-- including FDR in 1932. Stevenson captured more votes than any Democratic presidential contender in Virginia history, beating out FDR in 1936. The Republican vote, however, swamped him. It didn't surge-- it exploded. A majority of Eisenhower voters that year had never voted the Republican ticket before. The Republican vote more than doubled from 1948, which was already a record year for the GOP presidential ticket. More people voted for Eisenhower in Virginia in 1952 than voted for any candidate for president in Virginia in 1940. The significance of this explosion can perhaps be gauged by musing that, the 1948 Republican vote in Virginia was only 23% higher than the 1884 Republican vote in Virginia-- it had barely moved for well over half a century. Then, in just four years it doubled. Eisenhower received a paean of acclamation in the state, and won by 13%, 5 points more than Herbert Hoover. It would take another 20 years-- until 1972, for the GOP vote to double again.

The story is similar elsewhere in the South-- voter suppression led to low turnout, and this in combination with the region's Democratic lead deeply depressed Republican vote totals. Until 1952, then there is a one-step surge in many states, and the southern GOP never looked back.

[Beet]

South Carolina even more dramatic. In fact it makes Virginia look like peanuts. From 1900 to 1948, the Republican nominee had never received more than 6,000 votes in the state (undoubtedly due to voter suppression). Then in 1952, Eisenhower received 168,000 votes, in 1956 he received 75,000 votes, and the state has never given fewer than 100,000 votes to the Republican nominee since. Eisenhower received more votes in 1952 than all of the Republican presidential nominees *combined* between 1880 and 1948. So has every post-Eisenhower Republican nominee. It's fair to say that was the year the state GOP was born.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think it could be associated with Bourbons throwing off their "culturally anti-GOP views" and starting to vote with the party that best suited their economic interests, especially once the Dems had clearly embraced their "populist/progressive" foes and neither party could be trusted on race anymore (with the Dems having desegrated the military and so forth). Also the very same poll taxes and literary tests that held down the blacks often served to reduce turnout amongst poor whites and since the Democrats were the ones in charge in these states at the time, the GOP probably benefitted from increased support in places in the Western part of VA (kind of like EAST TN) save for those areas that had UMW influence of course, just as those same voters had first embraced those damn yankee Republicans because they were kept out of the power structure by the controlling interests on the other sides of their states. Plus simply competing in the state once again would serve to increase turnout, whereas before the GOP probably didn't spend a dime in a place like SC once blacks were completely driven away from the polls by new state constitutions. Once the GOP began to work these states, the Democrats had to do likewise as well. Lastly, it must be said that IKE was special kind of candidate that had a universal appeal in all parts of the country because of his war record.  

[Lincoln Republican]

One must take into consideration, however, the uncanny popularity of Eisenhower in 1952.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Eisenhower was a ridiculously popular non-politician with no real party alignment born in Texas. Wouldn't that do well in the South?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There was a time when that wouldn't have mattered and that is why "popular war hero" isn't enough to explain 1952. Granted World War II was a much bigger affair and US forces commanded by Ike were far more numerous then previous such examples. One such example would be none other than John C. Fremont, being a war hero who was born in the south, though probably slightly more alligned of course. Allignment firmness was also irrelevant in past elections and thus if you were a Republican, you were the Devil. That is why no distinction was made between Lincoln and say Seward or Chase. He was a Republican and that was that.

That is why the complexities beyond just his war record resulting popularity must be considered.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I imagine the growth of the middle class and suburbs postwar contributed something to this.

Re Virginia, it seems that ever since the voter disenfranchisement of the 1902 Constitution there were very large jumps in some elections in turnout, and quite flat in others.  Nothing like 1952 though.

[pbrower2a]

Of course, 1952 and 1956 were the two Presidential election years in which the Republican nominee won all  three of these states that almost never vote for a Republican nominee for President:

1. Rhode Island (which went for Republicans only in the 49-state landslides of 1972 and 1984)
2. Massachusetts (which went for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 -- but only then)
3. Minnesota (which barely voted for Mondale in 1984 and prevented a 50-state sweep).

It is not clear that Eisenhower was the more 'conservative' nominee. Southern whites probably voted unusually heavily (for a Republican landslide that won so many states) for a politician who got the support of segregationists. Eisenhower was comparatively liberal in effect (by standing with the Supreme Court) on school segregation.

As late as 1948, one notices that Utah went for a Democratic nominee for President in a close election. Beginning in 1952 Utah has been consistently much more R than the US as a whole.

...Virginia went from being a standard Southern state to being a very conservative Northern state in its pattern of voting... until 2008. The state was the only former-Confederate state to vote against Jimmy Carter (suggesting that it was no longer a Southern state)... and it voted against Bill Clinton twice.  But we may be talking about patterns set around the Civil War that became increasingly irrelevant. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You're right, Beet.  Ike carried much of the South in 1952 and 1956 because of his status as a war hero and because of in-migration of fiscally conservative voters from more Republican areas of the time.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Texas was another big one


Stevenson got more raw votes in Texas than FDR/Truman got and lost that state.


I think 1952 Might have been the election where the Texas GOP was born not the 1961 Special