Strom Thurmond's Poor Performance in Georgia, Relative to Goldwater 64

[JRP1994]

Why did Strom Thurmond fail to carry Georgia (fail quite badly, actually), while carrying most of the Cotton South?

Strom Thurmond Performance in Goldwater States:

Mississippi: Won 87% to 10%
Alabama: Won 80% to 19%
South Carolina: Won 72% to 24%
Louisiana: Won 49% to 33%
Georgia: LOST 61% to 20%

Barry Goldwater Performance in Goldwater States:

Mississippi: Won 87% to 13%
Alabama: Won 69% to 31%
South Carolina: Won 59% to 41%
Louisiana: Won 57% to 43%
Georgia: WON 54% to 46%

My question is this:

How and why did Goldwater carry Georgia by 8%, while Thurmond lost the state by 41%?

[old timey villain]

As a Georgian, I'm just thankful he didn't.

But really, I think Georgia had the strongest Democratic party apparatus out of every state in the deep south. To this day GA has the longest continuous streak of Democrat support in Presidential elections. I'm sure the Democratic machine made damn sure that Truman stayed on the ballot and that people supported him. I bet there were still a lot of Dems in the other states who would have supported Truman had he been on the ballot, but they really had no choice but to vote for Thurmond, because they sure weren't going to vote for Dewey.

So I guess overall, political leaders in AL, MS, LA and SC were more concerned with ideology while in GA they cared more about party loyalty.

Also, Johnson did best in Georgia out of all the deep south states Goldwater won.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Along with the above, I believe that Russell supported Truman over Thurmond.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Along with the above, I believe that Russell supported Truman over Thurmond.

He did indeed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The states that Thurmond won also happened to be exactly the ones which he was listed on the ballot as the Democratic candidate.

[H. Ross Peron]

Might have the vote of urban Atlanta (including perhaps some Northern transplants) have contributed to these results even if Atlanta wasn't the enormous metropolis it is to-day?

[old timey villain]

Might have the vote of urban Atlanta (including perhaps some Northern transplants) have contributed to these results even if Atlanta wasn't the enormous metropolis it is to-day?

Atlanta wasn't much in 1948. It was actually smaller than Birmingham back then and it didn't really influence state results as much. The only info I can find shows that Fulton county was actually not as strong for Truman as the more rural counties around it. This was around the time that some Northerners were beginning to move down here in large numbers, but they were actually more Republican than the locals.

My grandfather (raised in NY) moved to Atlanta a few years later and met my grandmother who spent most of her life in Atlanta. In 1960 he supported Nixon and she supported Kennedy. I think my grandfather was a little wary of the Democratic machine in the south at that time- maybe because it reminded him of the Democratic machines back in NY growing up, who knows.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I think it's fairer to compare Strom Thurmond's performance in Georgia compared to Wallace in 1968.  But as for Goldwater, a lot of it probably had to do with moderates in the Atlanta area who were more Republican-leaning to begin with.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The Democratic Party Machine stayed loyal and supported Truman in 1948. It didn't support Johnson in 1964.

[memphis]

The states that Thurmond won also happened to be exactly the ones which he was listed on the ballot as the Democratic candidate.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The incumbent prez wasn't on the ballot in those states. That's all there is to it.

[barfbag]

It's hard to say why, but until 1964 Georgia was a safe haven for Democrats. It could be argued that it continued getting redder?

[old timey villain]

It's hard to say why, but until 1964 Georgia was a safe haven for Democrats. It could be argued that it continued getting redder?

It's really not that hard to see why actually. Until the 1960s, the southern wing of the Democratic party supported segregation that benefitted whites, and since only white people could vote in the south, Democrats kept winning until the national party took a more liberal direction on those issues.

[barfbag]

It's hard to say why, but until 1964 Georgia was a safe haven for Democrats. It could be argued that it continued getting redder?

It's really not that hard to see why actually. Until the 1960s, the southern wing of the Democratic party supported segregation that benefitted whites, and since only white people could vote in the south, Democrats kept winning until the national party took a more liberal direction on those issues.

It was a sudden change in terms of being blue and then red.

[old timey villain]

It's hard to say why, but until 1964 Georgia was a safe haven for Democrats. It could be argued that it continued getting redder?

It's really not that hard to see why actually. Until the 1960s, the southern wing of the Democratic party supported segregation that benefitted whites, and since only white people could vote in the south, Democrats kept winning until the national party took a more liberal direction on those issues.

It was a sudden change in terms of being blue and then red.

How so? Georgia was all over the place in the 60s and 70s. Kennedy in 1960, then dramatic switch to Goldwater in 1964 (over civil rights) then third party in 1968, strong red in 1972 (like the rest of the country) then strong blue in 1976 and 1980.

There was a realignment going on, and states tend to change allegiances when that happens, but it wasn't overnight.

[barfbag]

It's hard to say why, but until 1964 Georgia was a safe haven for Democrats. It could be argued that it continued getting redder?

It's really not that hard to see why actually. Until the 1960s, the southern wing of the Democratic party supported segregation that benefitted whites, and since only white people could vote in the south, Democrats kept winning until the national party took a more liberal direction on those issues.

It was a sudden change in terms of being blue and then red.

How so? Georgia was all over the place in the 60s and 70s. Kennedy in 1960, then dramatic switch to Goldwater in 1964 (over civil rights) then third party in 1968, strong red in 1972 (like the rest of the country) then strong blue in 1976 and 1980.

There was a realignment going on, and states tend to change allegiances when that happens, but it wasn't overnight.

Starting in 1964 it was more favorable to Republicans. In 1968 they voted for Wallace because of segregation. Then in 1972 they voted strongly for Nixon like every other state in our country. Carter was from Georgia so the next two elections aren't indicative. We don't see any valuable data on the states between 1964 and 1992 with the exception of non-southern states in 1968 and again in 1976.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The states that Thurmond won also happened to be exactly the ones which he was listed on the ballot as the Democratic candidate.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The incumbent prez wasn't on the ballot in those states. That's all there is to it.

Actually Truman was only off the ballot in Alabama.  He even managed to do well enough in Louisiana to keep Thurmond down to a plurality.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

The states that Thurmond won also happened to be exactly the ones which he was listed on the ballot as the Democratic candidate.

What was Truman listed as in those states?

[minionofmidas]

In Mississippi, no one was listed as the Democratic candidate. Thurmond was the Mississippi Democratic candidate, Truman the National Democratic candidate.
I think in the other cases, the claim's just wrong. Although I'm not sure these states had a statewide uniform ballot listing back in 1948, anyways.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It's hard to say why, but until 1964 Georgia was a safe haven for Democrats. It could be argued that it continued getting redder?

It's really not that hard to see why actually. Until the 1960s, the southern wing of the Democratic party supported segregation that benefitted whites, and since only white people could vote in the south, Democrats kept winning until the national party took a more liberal direction on those issues.

Not exactly.  After World War II, a lot of people moved in to the suburban areas from areas that were more Republican previously and voted Republican based on economic issues.  While race may have played a factor in helping the GOP in 1964 and the AIP in 1968, but it wasn't after that.

[MATTROSE94]

As a Georgian, I'm just thankful he didn't.

But really, I think Georgia had the strongest Democratic party apparatus out of every state in the deep south. To this day GA has the longest continuous streak of Democrat support in Presidential elections. I'm sure the Democratic machine made damn sure that Truman stayed on the ballot and that people supported him. I bet there were still a lot of Dems in the other states who would have supported Truman had he been on the ballot, but they really had no choice but to vote for Thurmond, because they sure weren't going to vote for Dewey.

So I guess overall, political leaders in AL, MS, LA and SC were more concerned with ideology while in GA they cared more about party loyalty.

Also, Johnson did best in Georgia out of all the deep south states Goldwater won.

I thought that Arkansas actaully had the longest winning streak for the Democratic Party on the presidential level, as no Republican candidate won it until Richard Nixon in 1972.

[H. Ross Peron]

Might have the vote of urban Atlanta (including perhaps some Northern transplants) have contributed to these results even if Atlanta wasn't the enormous metropolis it is to-day?

Atlanta wasn't much in 1948. It was actually smaller than Birmingham back then and it didn't really influence state results as much. The only info I can find shows that Fulton county was actually not as strong for Truman as the more rural counties around it. This was around the time that some Northerners were beginning to move down here in large numbers, but they were actually more Republican than the locals.

My grandfather (raised in NY) moved to Atlanta a few years later and met my grandmother who spent most of her life in Atlanta. In 1960 he supported Nixon and she supported Kennedy. I think my grandfather was a little wary of the Democratic machine in the south at that time- maybe because it reminded him of the Democratic machines back in NY growing up, who knows.

Very interesting, thanks.

[barfbag]

It's hard to say why, but until 1964 Georgia was a safe haven for Democrats. It could be argued that it continued getting redder?

It's really not that hard to see why actually. Until the 1960s, the southern wing of the Democratic party supported segregation that benefitted whites, and since only white people could vote in the south, Democrats kept winning until the national party took a more liberal direction on those issues.

Not exactly.  After World War II, a lot of people moved in to the suburban areas from areas that were more Republican previously and voted Republican based on economic issues.  While race may have played a factor in helping the GOP in 1964 and the AIP in 1968, but it wasn't after that.

What do you mean only whites could vote in the south?

[minionofmidas]

Exactly that, duh.

How old are you - four?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The states that Thurmond won also happened to be exactly the ones which he was listed on the ballot as the Democratic candidate.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The incumbent prez wasn't on the ballot in those states. That's all there is to it.

Actually Truman was only off the ballot in Alabama.  He even managed to do well enough in Louisiana to keep Thurmond down to a plurality.

Yet Thurmond was still the "Democratic nominee" in Louisiana and Truman only got on the ballot thanks to the loyal Democrats, such as Allen Ellender.

By the way, Wallace was the official Democratic nominee in Alabama in '68, forcing Humphrey to ran on the "National Democratic" line.

[SingingAnalyst]

Perhaps Atlanta's urbanism (even in 1948) led them to reject a regional candidate, while Goldwater was seen as more mainstream?