1962 midterm elections: First hints of an anti-Dem trend in the south?

[Mr.Phips]

The 1962 midterm elections were pretty much the textbook definition of a neutral midterm election that tilted slightly to the President's party.  JFK's Democrats gained a few Senate seats, lost a few House seats, stayed even in governships and lost a small amount of state legislative seats. 

However, in the results, you can see the beginning of a shift away from Democrats in the South.

The best example of this is the Alabama Senate election, where a Republican came within an eyelash of knocking of the legendary Democratic Senator Lister Hill in a state that had never sent a Republican to the Senate.

You can also see Democrats underpeform in House races, nearly losing seats in Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Texas, and actually losing them in Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. 

What probably caused this shift was the talk from JFK and prominent Congressional Democrats about passing civil rights legislation for the first time ever. 

[MATTROSE94]

You are absolutely right about an anti-Democratic party trend beginning in the south during the 1962 midterm elections. I think it was partially to do with President Kennedy sending in federal troops in order to end the riots that began as a result of the integration of the University of Mississippi, which deeply angered many southern voters. I think that if the Cuban Missle Crisis did not occur, James Martin might have actually beat Lister Hill in the senatorial race in Alabama and both W. D. Workman, Jr. and Taylor W. O'Hearn might have done slightly better against Olin Johnson and Russel Long in their respective senate races in South Carolina and Louisiana.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Just gonna say "Mhm", since yeah. Not real need to go into detail since you already said it and it's established in Perlstein's "Nixonland".

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

In terms of Presidential Elections, the South had already begun to move Republican under Eisenhower. 

[stevekamp]

The 1962 Texas-16 win in El Paso was due to the Billie Sol Estes scandal.  The R winner there was defeated in 1964 and the seat has been D ever since. In 1964, Texas-5 in Dallas flipped back to D.

Three of the four new Florida seats went D (Gibbons, Pepper, Fuqua).

The Louisville KY-3 seat flipped back to D in 1964, but went R in 1966, back and frth thereafter.  Now solidly D (Yarmuth).

The two NC losses were the result of a Democratic goof-mander.

Tenn 3 in Chattanooga went R went a liberal defeated the conservative D in the primary.
   

[freepcrusher]

In the 11 confederate states:

Alabama - dems win top eight seats at large with no sign of gop trend (which would occur in 1964)
Arkansas - no evidence of a gop trend yet
Florida - republicans win new seat in Orlando area but all the dem incumbents do pretty well
Georgia - in open seat, republican gets to 44ish percent in a district that took in Atlanta and its suburbs
Louisiana - no sign of GOP trend
Mississippi - no sign of gop trend

North Carolina - with the exception of the 7th and districts 1-3 (where incumbents were unopposed) all democrats are held below 60%.

South Carolina - low country seat (which is actually dem leaning now) nearly goes republican. Albert Watson switches parties in the mid 60s and the republican he defeated (Spence) wins the seat when Watson runs for governor

Tennessee - the democrats get a surprisingly high 44% in TN 1 (albeit in open seat). The 3rd district incumbent loses renomination and goes republican for first time in 42 years. The longtime 9th district incumbent also narrowly wins reelection - a sign of ensuing racial polarization

Texas - unlike in the past. The republicans contest most of the races. Lindley Becker nearly loses reelection in a Tyler based district (which was gop leaning even then). The panhandle district incumbent is also held below 60 percent (in a district where Kennedy did a lot worse than Stevenson). Robert Casey in the 22nd district also has a close election battle since his district took in the memorial villages (which are put in the new 7th in 1966). The new at large seat goes dem by a 56-44 margin.

Virginia - the 3rd district nearly goes republican (against a long time incumbent as well). Richmond I think was also racially polarized just like Memphis was. When he retires in 1964, it goes dem even though Goldwater won the district, due to a third party candidate and the fact that Satterfield was to the right of 90-95% of republicans. The 7th district's (based in Shenandoah, Winchester area) incumbent retires and nearly goes republican. When Marsh retires eight years later, it is won by the man he defeated in 1962 and never flips back.

[Orser67]

I'd think the first hint would be the 1948 presidential election, when Strom Thurmond won a few Deep South states. In both '48 and '62, it would appear that civil rights were the major reason for the shift.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Contrary to popular misconception, it was probably more due to economic issues and anti-Communism, not race and civil rights.  After World War II, during the economic boom of the 50s, a lot of people from previously more Republican areas moved South, especially into the urban and suburban areas.  These voters were more fiscally conservative, and they voted based on their perceived economic interests.  The South as a whole was becoming richer, so it naturally started becoming more friendly to the GOP in the 50s and 60s.  I'm actually reading a book somewhat related this subject called The Silent Majority.  It's written by historian Matthew Lassiter, and it's worth checking out.

[Orser67]

Contrary to popular misconception, it was probably more due to economic issues and anti-Communism, not race and civil rights.

Interesting point, and there's probably a lot of merit to that argument. But the extreme racial polarization of the South seems, to me, to point more towards civil rights as the main reason. Also, states' rights were central to the candidacies of Thurmond, Goldwater, and Wallace, and these were three of the strongest non-Democratic candidates in the South in that time period. It seems likely to me that a)white supremacy was the top issue in the Deep South during this time, at least when it was an issue and b)white supremacy was the key driver in moving the Deep South into the Republican Party.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Contrary to popular misconception, it was probably more due to economic issues and anti-Communism, not race and civil rights.

Interesting point, and there's probably a lot of merit to that argument. But the extreme racial polarization of the South seems, to me, to point more towards civil rights as the main reason. Also, states' rights were central to the candidacies of Thurmond, Goldwater, and Wallace, and these were three of the strongest non-Democratic candidates in the South in that time period. It seems likely to me that a)white supremacy was the top issue in the Deep South during this time, at least when it was an issue and b)white supremacy was the key driver in moving the Deep South into the Republican Party.

There's a difference here between the Deep South and the Outer South that's expressed somewhat in the 1968 election and the difference in areas that went strong for Wallace versus those that went more for Nixon.  Issues of cultural identity were important in both campaigns, but in the former the race issue was central.