New York City election history

[ElectionsGuy]

Sorry if there's a thread already like this, but I wanted to do this anyway:

2012:

Obama: 1,995,241 (81.2%)
Romney: 436,889 (17.8%)

2008:

Obama: 2,074,159 (79.3%)
McCain: 524,787 (20.1%)

2004:

Kerry: 1,828,015 (75.0%)
Bush: 587,534 (24.1%)

2000:

Gore: 1,708,632 (77.9%)
Bush: 400,922 (18.3%)

1996:

Clinton: 1,512,248 (77.1%)
Dole: 339,537 (17.3%)

1992:

Clinton: 1,458,784 (68.7%)
Bush: 509,423 (24.0%)
(Shockingly low Perot numbers)

1998:

Dukakis: 1,340,795 (66.2%)
Bush: 665,407 (32.8%)

1984:

Mondale: 1,343,875 (61.0%)
Reagan: 852,317 (38.7%)

1980:

Carter: 1,052,178 (54.9%)
Reagan: 719,278 (37.5%)

1976:

Carter: 1,423,380 (66.4%)
Ford: 706,663 (32.9%)

1972:

McGovern: 1,342,996 (51.5%)
Nixon: 1,259,873 (48.3%)
(This one was actually close!)

1968:

Humphrey: 1,582,681 (60.1%)
Nixon: 886,959 (33.9%)

1964:

Johnson: 2,183,643 (73.0%)
Goldwater: 801,877 (26.8%)

1960:

Kennedy: 1,936,323 (62.6%)
Nixon: 1,145,205 (37.0%)

Over this time we observe two main things:

1. The decrease in turnout despite population increase and national moods (Ex: The 1960 and 1964 elections had more votes than the 2000 and 2004 elections)
2. The liberalization of the city over time (Ex: Obama is the first president ever to get >80%, Johnson wins *only* 73% despite winning a huge landslide)

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

1972 being close both surprises me and doesn't at the same time.

And what's so shocking about Perot's numbers?

[ElectionsGuy]

1972 being close both surprises me and doesn't at the same time.

And what's so shocking about Perot's numbers?

That he got 19% nationwide (16% statewide), but less than 8% in NYC.

But then again, many more party line voters in NYC.

[PulaskiSkywayDriver]

Shows how different the local and federal coalitions are in the the urban Northeast. The shift from McGovern to Mondale is very interesting as it trended more than the nation. Also demonstrates why NYS is so hard to win for the GOP.

[buritobr]

NYC has a stock market, banks, offices of big companies.

Why so few votes for the most pro-business party?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NYC has a stock market, banks, offices of big companies.

Why so few votes for the most pro-business party?

What do you mean? The party of Clinton and Cuomo is dominating the place.

[Mechaman]

NYC has a stock market, banks, offices of big companies.

Why so few votes for the most pro-business party?

New York City also has a long tradition of massive immigration and machine/labor politics.  Even as early as the 1790s Tammany Hall and other Jeffersonian sympathetic groups were effective at getting labor classes to turn out in heavy numbers against the more business classed Federalist party.  Not to mention that the Mid-Atlantic was settled by the Dutch who were well known for being a culture that placed high values on civil liberties and religious freedom, ideals that were highly held by the liberal strain of the American Revolution.  Jeffersonians, obviously, embraced such concepts.

And then you had massive immigration into the city in the mid 19th century by largely Irish immigrants.  This naturally favored the Democrats, who were long associated with a history of liberalism, democracy, and common man politics.  That many early Irish, especially those who were survivors of the Rebellion of 1798, were ardent advocates of Jeffersonialism to the point that they gained a reputation of being "the radical fringe" of American liberalism, only helped to give the Democrats massive advantages in urban areas where the National Republicans/Whigs used to hold strong ground.  About a third, yes a third, of the Irish immigrants who came into the New York Harbor during the Famine Generation stayed there.  The immigration wave dramatically changed the demographic makeup of the city and would ultimately turn New York City into a Democratic bastion when just a few decades before it was a swing city.

The impact of Tammany Hall also shouldn't be understated.  The Hall was actually a very pro-business establishment whose leadership was largely "lace curtain Irish" and sympathetic WASP/Dutch upper class (to answer the point about the presence of business influence in the city).  These elites bought the voters with the promises of new city jobs, higher pay, and other benefits through mass corruption.  This could be seen in some projects of the infamous Boss Tweed, who made fortunes for himself and enough money to throw around to a lot of the workingmen in the city by manipulating city projects into spending much more money than what the budgeted.  IIRC, one such project that was budgeted for only $200,000 under Tweed's influence ended up costing over $2,000,000 (not a small cost in those days)!  Republicans certainly couldn't gain any good ground with the groups that benefit from the graft of Tammany, and really didn't see any point in it.  For a lot of New York state's history, Republicans carried a pretty strong majority of the upstate vote based off the perception by many upstate voters that they would advance their interests against an inherently corrupt Democratic Party that favored New York City over the rest of the state.  They saw little reason to try to win New York City if they could win the rest of the state by convincing it that the Big Bad City Machine wants to destroy their voice and influence.

The New York Democratic Party certainly hasn't been the most radical of the Democratic Parties in the nation.  This isn't merely a more recent development, but goes back to the era when Tammany was king and basically bought working class voters into voting against their interests for businesses and policies that enriched the big boys in the organization.  Occasionally there were working class revolts against Tammany.  One such notable incident was the Election of 1886, that pitted the Tammany Democrat Abram Stevens Hewitt against a young Theodore Roosevelt and a well known political philosopher by the name of Henry George.  George, a middle class Anglo Episcopalian, was strongly associated with the Land League and other Irish Nationalist causes that were embraced by much of the Irish working class of the time.  His campaign was based around a land tax to combat social inequality, which given the times and the culture had a lot of appeal to many of the, again, Irish working class versus the more middle income "lace curtain" business favored community that strongly backed Tammany Hall.  There was even division among the clergy in the Parishes, as there was one controversial Catholic priest by the name of Edward McGlynn who came out strongly in favor of George's political campaign, a position so toxic in the church that he eventually got excommunicated for "endorsing radicalism". George would come in second place, beating TR by nearly 8,000 votes but still losing to Hewitt decisively in an election that many of his supporters claimed that was littered with fraud.

Later on in the early 20th century more progressive leadership by Charles Murphy and other leaders would encourage a generation of working class politicians like Al Smith to emerge.  When the Democrats finally got control of the state legislature in 1912 Smith and other likeminded pro-labor Democrats in the party successfully passed workplace safety laws and other progressive measures that had long been stonewalled by conservative Republicans and managed to get fair funding for New York City from a budge committee that for years was spending ungodly amounts of money upstate.  The morality obsession of many Republican lawmakers as well, with their obsession with Prohibition, Prostitution, and Baseball (I am not kidding) really rubbed even many progressive protestant Republicans in New York City the wrong way.  Like guns, Prohibition had a very big urban/rural divide and many New Yorkers, like many Chicagoans, Milwakeeans, and St. Louis residents, were very much opposed to it.  While more Northern Democrats were certainly opposed to the institution of Prohibition than were Northern Republicans just on demographics, there were more than just a few "wet" REpublicans.  Before he was President, Coolidge was considered to be one of the most public "wet" Republicans who had insane appeal to the traditionally Democratic Irish in Massachusetts and other immigrant groups.  In 1920 and 1924 the Republicans would win both Bronx and New York Counties, the first time with a majority in both and with a plurality in both in 1924.  This was when the national Democratic brand was arguably at it's lowest in the state of New York, as the German, the Irish, the Italian, and other ethnic European groups detested Wilson for his administration's policies during World War I in various ways.  His successor, James Cox, was considered to be a spineless idiot who couldn't make up his mind on any issue and John Davis was considered to be perhaps the most damn useless nominee in history.

The state level brand, however, was at one of it's zeniths.  In the Republican 1920s New York managed to elect a Democratic Governor to three terms (after his upset loss in 1920) and two US Senators and send a majority of the US House Reps for most of the decade (from 1927-1929 they even managed to hold 25 out of the state's 43 House seats in the Congress, nearly 60% representation in a state that traditionally sent Republicans during the most Republican decade of the 20th century).  Besides the State Legislature which was naturally Republican due to redistricting laws put into the Constitution of 1894 that strongly favored the Republican Upstate, New York was one of the most Democratic states outside of the South in the 1920s.  Tammany men were getting elected left and right, from the Mayoral office to the Governor's office to the US Senate.  Tammany, now in it's reform phase, was at it's zenith even after decades of attacks by political reformers.  The extent of it would be felt in 1928, when Al Smith won the Democratic nomination for President.  Though he lost in a landslide, his performance in the urban areas vs. the rural areas showed a dichotmy that few would've imagined a century ago.  The Democrats were becoming an urban party.

In the 1930's reformists would give the first mortal wounding to Tammany through the election of Fiorello La Guardia, an Italian American Republican who was pro-labor and anti-machine.  At the time many perceived the Democratic Party as an "Irish only" party, and this greatly helped Republican and anti-Tammany Democratic efforts.  There were a number of Republicans elected, from Jacob Javits to Vito Marcantonio, who were as liberal if not more liberal than many Democrats who were Republicans out of opposition to the authoritarianism of Tammany Hall.  This era of state Republicanism, where Republicans became more associated with opposition to corrupt and support of good and honest government than ideology, would give rise to the legendary label "Rockefeller Republican" for liberal Republicans who had little difference otherwise with liberal Democrats.  This actually helped them in the city, as by then the campaigns of the Roosevelts against Tammany (with FDR going as far as endorsing La Guardia in his run against NYC Democrats) and others had done great enough damage to the traditional Democratic hierarchy that Republicans were actually able to be competitive in Mayoral elections.

So yes, NYC may have pro-business segments, but it also has 8 million people.  Democrats have prevailed, and will continue to prevail, in NYC politics because they got the best combination of appeal between those in the business sectors and the regular voters.  While he was initially considered to be a populist candidate, I believe that the current mayoralship of Bill DiBlasio is as good an example of a politician who manages to balance all groups at one time.  He's pro-Israel, has made some concessions to lifestyle activist liberalism, appointed a tough on crime police comish, has run off of taxing the rich, you name it.  NYC mayors are by nature supposed to be pro-special interests, whether they intend to or not.

Whew, might've gone off track somewhere, but talking about New York politics gets me pretty damn excited.

[Joshgreen]

NYC has a stock market, banks, offices of big companies.

Why so few votes for the most pro-business party?

LOL dude. The Dem party is run by big business, just like the Republicans.

[sg0508]

NY also has the "best of the best" and the "worst of the worst".  The worst far outnumber the best.  There are a s..tload of poor people and low income people living in the boroughs and oh yeah, the "white" percentage is probably around 30%.  Do the math.

[politicallefty]

New York City seems to be almost ancestrally Democratic. Republicans haven't won it since 1924 and haven't won a majority in the city since 1920 (in both cases, they happened to have won all five boroughs). I think Eisenhower might have came close in 1952. Party strength in each borough has almost always been the same for many decades. In other words, from most Democratic to most Republican, it has been the Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.

As far as sweeping all boroughs (with data back to 1872):
D: 2012, 2000, 1996, 1964, 1936, 1932, 1928, 1912, 1892, 1888, 1884, 1880, 1876
R: 1924, 1920, 1896

[TDAS04]

New York City seems to be almost ancestrally Democratic. Republicans haven't won it since 1924 and haven't won a majority in the city since 1920 (in both cases, they happened to have won all five boroughs). I think Eisenhower might have came close in 1952. Party strength in each borough has almost always been the same for many decades. In other words, from most Democratic to most Republican, it has been the Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.

As far as sweeping all boroughs (with data back to 1872):
D: 2012, 2000, 1996, 1964, 1936, 1932, 1928, 1912, 1892, 1888, 1884, 1880, 1876
R: 1924, 1920, 1896

I think it was also pretty Democratic before 1872.  I'm pretty sure that Lincoln lost badly in NYC to George McClellan (thanks in large part to the Irish).

The city is almost the reverse East Tennessee, at least in presidential elections.

[Mechaman]

New York City seems to be almost ancestrally Democratic. Republicans haven't won it since 1924 and haven't won a majority in the city since 1920 (in both cases, they happened to have won all five boroughs). I think Eisenhower might have came close in 1952. Party strength in each borough has almost always been the same for many decades. In other words, from most Democratic to most Republican, it has been the Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.

As far as sweeping all boroughs (with data back to 1872):
D: 2012, 2000, 1996, 1964, 1936, 1932, 1928, 1912, 1892, 1888, 1884, 1880, 1876
R: 1924, 1920, 1896

I think it was also pretty Democratic before 1872.  I'm pretty sure that Lincoln lost badly in NYC to George McClellan (thanks in large part to the Irish).

The city is almost the reverse East Tennessee, at least in presidential elections.

IIRC, McClellan might've polled as high as 66% in New York City.  The Irish neighborhoods on the Lower East Side went Democratic by like a 90% voter margin.  Needless to say, the performance of McClellan in the city was almost enough to win the entire state.  Four years later Horatio Seymour did even better, winning 69% of the city vote and carrying the state.  Even before the massive immigration New York City leaned Democratic due to it's position in the nation. The city benefitted a lot from foreign trade and was often at odds with the protectionist trade policies of New England.  I believe that Jackson won the city both times, Van Buren won it, as did Polk.  Harrison I believe carried the city due largely to the Panic of 1837 and Taylor won it due to the split in the state Democratic Party in the Election of 1848. I don't believe any Republican until McKinley in 1896 and then Harding in 1920 and Coolidge in 1924 won the city.

There was a natural liberalism in the predecessor Dutch society as well that was opposed to the Puritan nature of New England.  Civil liberties, freedom of speech, and religious freedom were hallmarks of New Netherlands and the city of New Amsterdam.  Rich Dutch families like the Roosevelts, the Van Burens, et al were traditionally Democratic families who were aligned with the free trade/anti-slavery faction of the Democratic Party.  I believe I read somewhere that the Teddy Roosevelt branch of the family became Republican a little bit before or during the Civil War.

And then of course you had the Irish, who actually were settling in the city long before the massive immigration wave in the 1840s/1850s.  A lot of the early immigrants were actually merchant class survivors of the 1798 Rebellion who when they came over became heavily involved with the early Democratic Republican Party (for obvious reasons).  The Alien and Sedition Acts and the Naturalization Acts of 1798 plus Jeffersonian outreach to the group only solidified support for all policies Jeffersonian.  In America some of these middle class/upper class revolutionaries set about creating the early Jeffersonian propaganda, which aligned with the early American center-left.

Later on as the issue of slavery became more pressing, many Irishmen took the side of the slaveholders.  There are a number of factors influencing their collusion with the Southern slaveholder (which no one, including me, will justify), namely fear of economic competition from freed blacks, becoming "white" to avoid suspicion from pro-slavery protestants about their loyalties, and most likely a sense of loyalty to the Democratic Party which pushed for their general welfare (the last one of these which is rarely ever talked about in demographic analyses).  Tammany Hall was also heavily associated with slavery, as machine politicians like Fernando Wood even went as far as to advocate New York City seceding from the Union and allying with the South due to the perception that the Union's economic policies harmed their trade.  More than likely, Wood imagined that a free New York City would be able to easily kick out blacks and other non-whites to appeal to the white underclass that the Hall had bribed into supporting the Democratic Party and get rid of what lower class support Republicans might get.
Horatio Seymour was a particularly powerful politician among the white working class, going as far as to run off of a platform of keeping blacks out of New York state to protect the white market from black labor that might move up north.  A most ironic strategy, given that just a decade before the Democratic Party campaigned hard against the Know Nothing Party's nativism against Irish immigration based on the same rationale (immigrants taking jobs from WASP workers for less pay) and against the National Republican/Whig defense of voting rights for property owners only.  It's almost as if the political parties cared more about winning than principles!

The Republican Party tried to make some small efforts at appealing to Catholics with politicians like John Conness and Carl Schurz (both ethnic nationalists who were anti-slavery and in support of Chinese immigration and universal suffrage), however it was too little too late.  Conness (a pallbearer at Lincoln's funeral and supposedly the man who called out the conspiracy to murder the entire cabinet upon news of Lincoln being shot) was defeated for re-election to the US Senate seat representing California in 1868 due to the unpopularity of his consistent advocacy of Civil Rights for all minorities among his state's party.  Schurz later became a Liberal Republican out of a perception that Reconstruction was on the mend as well as (from what I'm reading) disagreements on the Republican trade policy.  With the unpopularity of both of these guys and others heavily involved in abolitionism and the universal suffrage movement among the party hierarchy, the more traditional economically nationalist wing of the party started forcing out such malcontents and revamping the more openly protectionist, nativist, and moralistic brands of republicanism.  Needless to say, this did not appeal to many voters in New York City and later other urban areas that had a largely let and let live mentality on things like alcohol, leisure time, prostitution, gambling, and other matters.  We begin to see an interesting exchange take place, as Republicans continue to grow in rural areas based off of the idea of "values" and the Democrats continue to grow in urban areas based off of keeping overly religious morality conservatives from enforcing their will on the urban populace.  Such a process that continues to this day, needless to say.

And I do agree, East Tennessee is a very fascinating comparison to be made.

Another day, another nerdpost.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The population of the city between 1960 and 2000 only increased by 200,000 persons - this is the great age of white flight after all. According to wiki, it fell by almost 900,000 between 1970 and 1980.

Oh, and the national turnout was higher in 2004 than in 1964.

[MATTROSE94]

Sorry if there's a thread already like this, but I wanted to do this anyway:

2012:

Obama: 1,995,241 (81.2%)
Romney: 436,889 (17.8%)

2008:

Obama: 2,074,159 (79.3%)
McCain: 524,787 (20.1%)

2004:

Kerry: 1,828,015 (75.0%)
Bush: 587,534 (24.1%)

2000:

Gore: 1,708,632 (77.9%)
Bush: 400,922 (18.3%)

1996:

Clinton: 1,512,248 (77.1%)
Dole: 339,537 (17.3%)

1992:

Clinton: 1,458,784 (68.7%)
Bush: 509,423 (24.0%)
(Shockingly low Perot numbers)

1998:

Dukakis: 1,340,795 (66.2%)
Bush: 665,407 (32.8%)

1984:

Mondale: 1,343,875 (61.0%)
Reagan: 852,317 (38.7%)

1980:

Carter: 1,052,178 (54.9%)
Reagan: 719,278 (37.5%)

1976:

Carter: 1,423,380 (66.4%)
Ford: 706,663 (32.9%)

1972:

McGovern: 1,342,996 (51.5%)
Nixon: 1,259,873 (48.3%)
(This one was actually close!)

1968:

Humphrey: 1,582,681 (60.1%)
Nixon: 886,959 (33.9%)

1964:

Johnson: 2,183,643 (73.0%)
Goldwater: 801,877 (26.8%)

1960:

Kennedy: 1,936,323 (62.6%)
Nixon: 1,145,205 (37.0%)

Over this time we observe two main things:

1. The decrease in turnout despite population increase and national moods (Ex: The 1960 and 1964 elections had more votes than the 2000 and 2004 elections)
2. The liberalization of the city over time (Ex: Obama is the first president ever to get >80%, Johnson wins *only* 73% despite winning a huge landslide)

Did Eisenhower come close to carrying New York City in '52 and '56, or did Stevenson win the city by a landslide margin both times?

[Mechaman]

Sorry if there's a thread already like this, but I wanted to do this anyway:

2012:

Obama: 1,995,241 (81.2%)
Romney: 436,889 (17.8%)

2008:

Obama: 2,074,159 (79.3%)
McCain: 524,787 (20.1%)

2004:

Kerry: 1,828,015 (75.0%)
Bush: 587,534 (24.1%)

2000:

Gore: 1,708,632 (77.9%)
Bush: 400,922 (18.3%)

1996:

Clinton: 1,512,248 (77.1%)
Dole: 339,537 (17.3%)

1992:

Clinton: 1,458,784 (68.7%)
Bush: 509,423 (24.0%)
(Shockingly low Perot numbers)

1998:

Dukakis: 1,340,795 (66.2%)
Bush: 665,407 (32.8%)

1984:

Mondale: 1,343,875 (61.0%)
Reagan: 852,317 (38.7%)

1980:

Carter: 1,052,178 (54.9%)
Reagan: 719,278 (37.5%)

1976:

Carter: 1,423,380 (66.4%)
Ford: 706,663 (32.9%)

1972:

McGovern: 1,342,996 (51.5%)
Nixon: 1,259,873 (48.3%)
(This one was actually close!)

1968:

Humphrey: 1,582,681 (60.1%)
Nixon: 886,959 (33.9%)

1964:

Johnson: 2,183,643 (73.0%)
Goldwater: 801,877 (26.8%)

1960:

Kennedy: 1,936,323 (62.6%)
Nixon: 1,145,205 (37.0%)

Over this time we observe two main things:

1. The decrease in turnout despite population increase and national moods (Ex: The 1960 and 1964 elections had more votes than the 2000 and 2004 elections)
2. The liberalization of the city over time (Ex: Obama is the first president ever to get >80%, Johnson wins *only* 73% despite winning a huge landslide)

Did Eisenhower come close to carrying New York City in '52 and '56, or did Stevenson win the city by a landslide margin both times?

I depends on what you mean by "New York City".  If you mean as in New York County, I believe that Stevenson won, but by so little he was a disappointment to all (even his parents).  If you mean the five boroughs. . . . based off of what I've seen it's quite possible he lost to Ike.

[Mechaman]

Here's what I found out:

1952:

New York City (assuming the Boroughs count):

Bronx:   Adlai Stevenson   John Sparkman   Democrat   392,477   60.59%
   Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   241,898   37.34%
   Vincent Hallinan   Charlotta Bass   American Labor   13,420   2.07%

New York:   Adlai Stevenson   John Sparkman   Democrat   446,727   58.47%
   Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   300,284   39.30%
   Vincent Hallinan   Charlotta Bass   American Labor   16,974   2.22%

Richmond:    Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   55,993   66.21%
   Adlai Stevenson   John Sparkman   Democrat   28,280   33.44%
   Vincent Hallinan   Charlotta Bass   American Labor   294   0.35%

Kings:    Adlai Stevenson   John Sparkman   Democrat   656,229   58.50%
   Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   446,708   39.82%
   Vincent Hallinan   Charlotta Bass   American Labor   18,765   1.67%

Queens:    Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   450,610   57.11%
   Adlai Stevenson   John Sparkman   Democrat   331,217   41.98%
   Vincent Hallinan   Charlotta Bass   American Labor   7,194   0.91%

Total Vote (3,407,070)

Adlai Stevenson/John Sparkman (Democratic) 1,854,930 54.44%
Dwight Eisenhower/Richard Nixon (Republican) 1,495,493 43.89%
Vincent Hallinan/Charlotta Bass (American Labor) 56,647 1.67%

So yes, Adlai did win the "City" in 1952.  However, as you can see it was with only 54% or so of the vote.  Given that the upstate was super GOP, the results are quite damning.

1956:

Bronx:    Adlai Stevenson   Estes Kefauver   Democrat   343,823   57.19%
   Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   257,382   42.81%

New York:    Adlai Stevenson   Estes Kefauver   Democrat   377,856   55.74%
   Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   300,004   44.26%

Richmond:    Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   64,233   76.58%
   Adlai Stevenson   Estes Kefauver   Democrat   19,644   23.42%

Kings:    Adlai Stevenson   Estes Kefauver   Democrat   557,655   54.77%
   Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   460,456   45.23%

Queens:    Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   466,057   59.39%
   Adlai Stevenson   Estes Kefauver   Democrat   318,723   40.61%

Total Vote (3,165,833)

Adlai Stevenson/Estes Kefauver (Democratic) 1,617,701 51.10%
Dwight Eisenhower/Richard Nixon (Republican) 1,548,132 48.90%

So yes, Stevenson won both times if you count all five boroughs (very barely though).  He beat Ike by only 2.20%, which certainly shows how bad the Democrats were doing elsewhere in the state.

Up next!  Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge's numbers!

[MATTROSE94]

Here's what I found out:

1952:

New York City (assuming the Boroughs count):

Bronx:   Adlai Stevenson   John Sparkman   Democrat   392,477   60.59%
   Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   241,898   37.34%
   Vincent Hallinan   Charlotta Bass   American Labor   13,420   2.07%

New York:   Adlai Stevenson   John Sparkman   Democrat   446,727   58.47%
   Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   300,284   39.30%
   Vincent Hallinan   Charlotta Bass   American Labor   16,974   2.22%

Richmond:    Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   55,993   66.21%
   Adlai Stevenson   John Sparkman   Democrat   28,280   33.44%
   Vincent Hallinan   Charlotta Bass   American Labor   294   0.35%

Kings:    Adlai Stevenson   John Sparkman   Democrat   656,229   58.50%
   Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   446,708   39.82%
   Vincent Hallinan   Charlotta Bass   American Labor   18,765   1.67%

Queens:    Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   450,610   57.11%
   Adlai Stevenson   John Sparkman   Democrat   331,217   41.98%
   Vincent Hallinan   Charlotta Bass   American Labor   7,194   0.91%

Total Vote (3,407,070)

Adlai Stevenson/John Sparkman (Democratic) 1,854,930 54.44%
Dwight Eisenhower/Richard Nixon (Republican) 1,495,493 43.89%
Vincent Hallinan/Charlotta Bass (American Labor) 56,647 1.67%

So yes, Adlai did win the "City" in 1952.  However, as you can see it was with only 54% or so of the vote.  Given that the upstate was super GOP, the results are quite damning.

1956:

Bronx:    Adlai Stevenson   Estes Kefauver   Democrat   343,823   57.19%
   Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   257,382   42.81%

New York:    Adlai Stevenson   Estes Kefauver   Democrat   377,856   55.74%
   Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   300,004   44.26%

Richmond:    Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   64,233   76.58%
   Adlai Stevenson   Estes Kefauver   Democrat   19,644   23.42%

Kings:    Adlai Stevenson   Estes Kefauver   Democrat   557,655   54.77%
   Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   460,456   45.23%

Queens:    Dwight Eisenhower   Richard Nixon   Republican   466,057   59.39%
   Adlai Stevenson   Estes Kefauver   Democrat   318,723   40.61%

Total Vote (3,165,833)

Adlai Stevenson/Estes Kefauver (Democratic) 1,617,701 51.10%
Dwight Eisenhower/Richard Nixon (Republican) 1,548,132 48.90%

So yes, Stevenson won both times if you count all five boroughs (very barely though).  He beat Ike by only 2.20%, which certainly shows how bad the Democrats were doing elsewhere in the state.

Up next!  Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge's numbers!

Thanks for the info! It looks like Stevenson did somewhat worse in New York County than I though at first. I would have assumed that he would have won the County in 1952 with close to 60% of the vote and in 1956 with around 55% of the vote.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Shows how different the local and federal coalitions are in the the urban Northeast. The shift from McGovern to Mondale is very interesting as it trended more than the nation.

There were other factors there. McGovern was distrusted by organized labor, and the Hunter Thompson book on '72 suggests that he was sometimes tagged as anti-Semitic, likely for being insufficiently pro-Israel. Mondale was more of a Humphrey liberal like NYC likes, and his running mate was from Queens.

[ElectionsGuy]

A little follow up... Long Island election history back to 1960 (Nassau and Suffolk counties)

2012:

Obama: 606,774 (52.2%)
Romney: 541,439 (46.6%)

2008:

Obama: 688,734 (53.2%)
McCain: 595,797 (46.0%)

2004:

Kerry: 638,979 (50.8%)
Bush: 598,304 (47.6%)

2000:

Gore: 648,532 (55.7%)
Bush: 468,052 (40.2%)

1996:

Clinton: 565,415 (53.9%)
Dole: 379,330 (36.1%)

1992:

Clinton: 503,404 (42.8%)
Bush: 476,348 (40.5%)

1988:

Bush: 648,672 (58.6%)
Dukakis: 449,345 (40.6%)

1984:

Reagan: 727,502 (63.7%)
Mondale: 411,992 (36.1%)

1980:

Reagan: 589,861 (56.4%)
Carter: 357,547 (34.2%)

1976:

Ford: 578,084 (52.8%)
Carter: 511,132 (46.6%)

1972:

Nixon: 755,175 (66.1%)
McGovern: 385,272 (33.7%)

1968:

Nixon: 547,819 (53.8%)
Humphrey: 401,189 (39.4%)

1964:

Johnson: 563,188 (58.8%)
Goldwater: 393,236 (41.1%)

1960:

Nixon: 490,899 (56.5%)
Kennedy: 377,336 (43.4%)

Long Island is to the right of the state as a whole, much of the time 10-15 points to the right. The number of votes remained consistent throughout, generally ranging from 0.9 M to 1.2 M. Population probably increased, and the % turnout probably has decreased. I also noticed that the farther you go back, Suffolk County is much less populated and voted much more republican than Nassau County. Today they have similar population and voting patterns, with Suffolk County being slightly more republican and slightly more populated.

[Redban]

Fascinating thread, especially for a New York like myself.

I'm not surprised to see these numbers. I'm a Republican in NYC, but I'm a loner in this regard. NYC contains many immigrants, college students, and indigents (who vastly outnumber the wealthy). These groups are strongly Democratic.

I notice you say Coolidge was the last to win NYC -- I though Dewey (the former mayor of NYC) pulled it off against FDR or Truman?

[TDAS04]

Fascinating thread, especially for a New York like myself.

I'm not surprised to see these numbers. I'm a Republican in NYC, but I'm a loner in this regard. NYC contains many immigrants, college students, and indigents (who vastly outnumber the wealthy). These groups are strongly Democratic.

I notice you say Coolidge was the last to win NYC -- I though Dewey (the former mayor of NYC) pulled it off against FDR or Truman?

If Ike couldn't win NYC, I don't see how Dewey could have come close.  He lost New York State to FDR and almost lost it to Truman.  (Dewey beat Truman in the state by 1%, thanks to Henry Wallace capturing 8%.)

[SNJ1985]

I'd be interested in seeing Philadelphia's.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

I notice you say Coolidge was the last to win NYC -- I though Dewey (the former mayor of NYC) pulled it off against FDR or Truman?

Dewey was never mayor of New York. He was a Manhattan DA and governor of the state but not mayor.

[TDAS04]

I'd be interested in seeing Philadelphia's.

It was an extremely Republican city before 1936.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'd be interested in seeing Philadelphia's.

Its been consistently more democratic than NYC since the 50's. I can probably do a whole other thread on it if you want.