1928: If Al Smith converts

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Let's imagine sometime earlier in his tenure as New York Governor Al Smith had renounced Catholicism and was formally received into some Protestant church. What does the map look like then?

Honestly probably not much different. He'd win the entire Solid South but that's about it.

[MATTROSE94]

I could see him picking up Texas and North Carolina, but that's about it.

[Mechaman]

Let's imagine sometime earlier in his tenure as New York Governor Al Smith had renounced Catholicism and was formally received into some Protestant church. What does the map look like then?

Honestly probably not much different. He'd win the entire Solid South but that's about it.

He'd also lose a good deal of support up north by Catholics (especially the Irish) who would see such a move as a slap in the face.  He would probably even lose enough support to not win Massachusetts or Rhode Island, as many would see his "conversion" purely as a means to get more appeal to bigoted protestants in an era where being Catholic was becoming more and more acceptable by mainstream society.  As far as many of the Catholics are concerned, especially the Irish, he might as well have announced that he was a Republican or that he thought that the British were right.  Pretty much, he would become the "Uncle Tom" of Catholics and other non-protestant ethnics.

To properly understand why a lot of Catholics were so reactionary against converts, you would have to know about the struggles they faced in a strongly Protestant society that was prejudiced against them.  But of course, dear Zachary, that would require you to read another source other than the Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire.  But don't worry though, for just five dollars more you can get this handy dandy book that will tell you all about it!

With the courtesy BRTD bashing out of the way, here's what I think the map would look like, assuming everything else is constant:

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Let's imagine sometime earlier in his tenure as New York Governor Al Smith had renounced Catholicism and was formally received into some Protestant church. What does the map look like then?

Honestly probably not much different. He'd win the entire Solid South but that's about it.

He'd also lose a good deal of support up north by Catholics (especially the Irish) who would see such a move as a slap in the face.  He would probably even lose enough support to not win Massachusetts or Rhode Island, as many would see his "conversion" purely as a means to get more appeal to bigoted protestants in an era where being Catholic was becoming more and more acceptable by mainstream society.  As far as many of the Catholics are concerned, especially the Irish, he might as well have announced that he was a Republican or that he thought that the British were right.  Pretty much, he would become the "Uncle Tom" of Catholics and other non-protestant ethnics.

To properly understand why a lot of Catholics were so reactionary against converts, you would have to know about the struggles they faced in a strongly Protestant society that was prejudiced against them.  But of course, dear Zachary, that would require you to read another source other than the Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire.  But don't worry though, for just five dollars more you can get this handy dandy book that will tell you all about it!

With the courtesy BRTD bashing out of the way, here's what I think the map would look like, assuming everything else is constant:

Never heard of it. Doubt I would like it considering how critical of the British Empire I have been. But I'm surprised you instead didn't say something like "Realize that historical converts from Catholicism are not comparable or the same thing as people from Catholic families in 21st century middle class Midwestern suburbia becoming hipster Christians or self-described atheists in the hardcore scene or whatever".

But anyway why doesn't he win North Carolina?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also Mechaman in regards to this:

To properly understand why a lot of Catholics were so reactionary against converts, you would have to know about the struggles they faced in a strongly Protestant society that was prejudiced against them.

Isn't that just basically the same type of prejudice but in the opposite direction? Sounds like two wrongs to me, not an appropriate reaction.

[Mechaman]

Also Mechaman in regards to this:

To properly understand why a lot of Catholics were so reactionary against converts, you would have to know about the struggles they faced in a strongly Protestant society that was prejudiced against them.

Isn't that just basically the same type of prejudice but in the opposite direction? Sounds like two wrongs to me, not an appropriate reaction.

I'm not going to say it's right.  In fact it is wrong.  It is as wrong as the Irish being bigoted against African Americans and Asians because they thought they were taking their jobs.  However, given that the society that they lived in had been throwing stones at them for centuries it's hard to blame them for being militant.  It's like saying you can understand the frustration of many hardcore Palestinian groups that attack Israeli citizens, though you disagree with their genocidal statements on Jewish groups (as an example on an issue that we both agree on).

But it is somewhat comforting to know that you've at least implied that there was some anti-Catholic prejudice in American History.  I've been waiting years to get that out of you, even if you can't directly admit it.  Of course now, we all just have to wait for you (and probably a few others) to admit that such prejudice were never justified.  And really, that last statement of yours at least makes you sound a lot more rational on that front than the perception I had been getting for the past few years.  However, I still think it's telling of a very limited world experience.

[Mechaman]

Let's imagine sometime earlier in his tenure as New York Governor Al Smith had renounced Catholicism and was formally received into some Protestant church. What does the map look like then?

Honestly probably not much different. He'd win the entire Solid South but that's about it.

He'd also lose a good deal of support up north by Catholics (especially the Irish) who would see such a move as a slap in the face.  He would probably even lose enough support to not win Massachusetts or Rhode Island, as many would see his "conversion" purely as a means to get more appeal to bigoted protestants in an era where being Catholic was becoming more and more acceptable by mainstream society.  As far as many of the Catholics are concerned, especially the Irish, he might as well have announced that he was a Republican or that he thought that the British were right.  Pretty much, he would become the "Uncle Tom" of Catholics and other non-protestant ethnics.

To properly understand why a lot of Catholics were so reactionary against converts, you would have to know about the struggles they faced in a strongly Protestant society that was prejudiced against them.  But of course, dear Zachary, that would require you to read another source other than the Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire.  But don't worry though, for just five dollars more you can get this handy dandy book that will tell you all about it!

With the courtesy BRTD bashing out of the way, here's what I think the map would look like, assuming everything else is constant:

Never heard of it. Doubt I would like it considering how critical of the British Empire I have been. But I'm surprised you instead didn't say something like "Realize that historical converts from Catholicism are not comparable or the same thing as people from Catholic families in 21st century middle class Midwestern suburbia becoming hipster Christians or self-described atheists in the hardcore scene or whatever".

But anyway why doesn't he win North Carolina?

Well yeah, I guess that would've been a better opening salvo if I pointed out historical context of anti-Catholicism in the 1920s.  Admittedly, I was more interested in bringing up one of your debating points and turn it against you on the front that Smith's conversion wouldn't change anything.  I will admit that many converts from Catholicism now days do so for pretty different reasons than they probably did in the 1920s.  While there still is some presence of right wing anti-Catholicism, a lot of criticism now days seems to be coming more from left wing anti-religious/anti-hierarchial types that see the hypocrisy in the church's handling of the sex scandals as well as some disagreements over controversial issues.  However, while the authority and word of the Pope does have bearing on the direction of the Church, I should note that it isn't entirely uncommon for Bishops and other lower level leaders to take a different course from the Pope, as well as the laity to have notably different views.  Hell, recent polls suggest that the average American Catholic approves of Same Sex Marriage at a higher rate than the general populace:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1961

There is even some indication that a majority of devout Catholics support Gay Marriage.  And even on Abortion, an issue that the hierarchy is pretty decisively against, most Catholics seem to be in support of.  Now sure, to you in the middle of Hipsterville, Minneapolis that might seem like poll numbers from a John Birch poll, but down here in Fundieville that looks like Gayachussetts.  I'm just saying that I really think that you need to start considering things from a fundamentally different level.

As for North Carolina, IIRC Hoover won there with 56% of the vote against Smith.  This will shock you, but I actually do agree with you about Catholicism not being that much of an effect in the Election of 1928.  The most overwhelming issue was the direction of the American economy, the perception that times were going to keep on going good, and Hoover's insane popularity with the American public.  Hell, Prohibition (which I assumed Smith would still be against even if he did make such a public conversion) was probably as strong of a factor as his Catholicism.  Honestly, I could see some kind of "closet Papist!" argument being used against Smith (similar to the campaign that Coleman Blease ran against James F. Byrnes in the US Senate Race in South Carolina in 1924) after his conversion in some states if he kept his views on Prohibition, which would help in a state like North Carolina.

Anti-Catholic bigotry probably did help in some areas, but it was by no means the dominant issue of the campaign.  Though, considering the second run of the Ku Klux Klan (a society that Republicanism was traditionally opposed to) that was strongly associated with the rise of anti-Catholic bigotry in the 1920s, Herbert Hoover should be right condemned for allowing his friends in the GOP to run an anti-Catholic campaign and firing all the blacks in their Southern parties to appeal to White Protestants.  It truly is a dark mark on the Republican Party's history, as even with the amount of anti-Catholic bigots they had before then they usually managed to keep such rhetoric contained to the local and state levels (if not try to win over Catholics, like they attempted in 1884 (which failed miserably due to some idiot supporters of theirs), 1888, 1896, 1904, 1916, 1920, and 1924) and not use it as a major character issue on the national level.

[President Johnson]

Almost no change to the real election. The mood in the 1920s before the depression was deeply Republican. Hoover still wins in a landslide.

[badgate]

Also Mechaman in regards to this:

To properly understand why a lot of Catholics were so reactionary against converts, you would have to know about the struggles they faced in a strongly Protestant society that was prejudiced against them.

Isn't that just basically the same type of prejudice but in the opposite direction? Sounds like two wrongs to me, not an appropriate reaction.

If you really think that you need to come back with a basic comprehension of coalition politics. For a modern-day equivalent, think of a "gay republican" circa-2004 when Bush was on his anti-gay crusade.