How did the South vote in previous presidential elections?

[ElectionsGuy]

I decided to add up all the southern states votes for every presidential election and show them here. I do realize there is a results by census division thread. However, that thread addresses the south with DE, MD, and DC. This one does not, as I think most of us agree those don't belong in the south (anymore at least). Plus, you get to see real votes and percentages. Keep in mind the upper south (which I define as WV, VA, KY, TN, and NC) may have a greater influence than the deep south, due to terrible turnout in the deep south in result of mass voter suppression, in certain time periods. So the south may actually be less democratic than it looks. I will include third parties who get >5% of the vote.

2020:

Donald Trump (R): 29,086,380 (53.4%)
Joe Biden (D): 24,544,252 (45.1%)

2016:

Donald Trump (R): 24,726,382 (53.3%)
Hillary Clinton (D): 19,771,012 (42.6%)

2012:

Mitt Romney (R): 23,601,717 (54.4%)
Barack Obama (D): 19,219,949 (44.3%)

2008:

John McCain (R): 23,124,777 (53.2%)
Barack Obama (D): 19,838,691 (45.7%)

2004:

George W. Bush (R): 22,394,579 (57.2%)
John Kerry (D): 16,445,366 (42.0%)

2000:

George W. Bush (R): 17,920,931 (54.5%)
Al Gore (D): 14,209,319 (43.2%)

1996:

Bill Clinton (D): 13,584,234 (46.0%)
Bob Dole (R): 13,549,250 (45.9%)
Ross Perot (I): 2,167,339 (7.3%)

1992:

George H.W. Bush (R): 13,183,485 (42.4%)
Bill Clinton (D): 12,810,509 (41.2%)
Ross Perot (I): 4,974,844 (16.0%)

1988:

George H.W. Bush (R): 15,283,600 (57.9%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 10,909,486 (41.3%)

1984:

Ronald Reagan (R): 16,638,004 (62.3%)
Walter Mondale (D): 9,928,558 (37.2%)

1980:

Ronald Reagan (R): 12,301,767 (51.6%)
Jimmy Carter (D): 10,588,185 (44.4%)

1976:

Jimmy Carter (D): 11,501,224 (53.9%)
Gerald Ford (R): 9,584,632 (44.9%)

1972:

Richard Nixon (R): 12,659,971 (69.2%)
George McGovern (D): 5,362,579 (29.3%)

1968:

Richard Nixon (R): 6,340,623 (36.1%)
Hubert Humphrey (D): 5,648,286 (32.2%)
George Wallace (AI): 5,532,359 (31.5%)

1964:

Lyndon Johnson (D): 7,824,569 (51.9%)*
Barry Goldwater (R): 7,032,979 (46.6%)

1960:

John Kennedy (D): 6,512,755 (49.6%)
Richard Nixon (R): 6,255,005 (47.6%)

1956:

Dwight Eisenhower (R): 5,707,600 (50.2%)
Adlai Stevenson (D): 5,358,756 (47.2%)

1952:

Adlai Stevenson (D): 5,808,409 (51.1%)
Dwight Eisenhower (R): 5,546,587 (48.8%)

1948:

Harry Truman (D): 3,979,663 (53.0%)
Thomas Dewey (R): 2,309,247 (30.8%)
Strom Thurmond (SR): 1,171,803 (15.6%)

1944:

Franklin Roosevelt (D): 4,662,993 (66.2%)
Thomas Dewey (R): 2,229,972 (31.6%)

1940:

Franklin Roosevelt (D): 5,251,212 (70.8%)
Wendell Willkie (R): 2,157,504 (29.1%)

1936:

Franklin Roosevelt (D): 4,917,211 (73.5%)
Alfred Landon (R): 1,738,473 (26.0%)

1932:

Franklin Roosevelt (D): 4,553,402 (73.3%)
Herbert Hoover (R): 1,614,490 (26.0%)

1928:

Herbert Hoover (R): 2,930,470 (52.5%)
Alfred Smith (D): 2,629,028 (47.1%)

1924:

John Davis (D): 2,581,074 (58.0%)
Calvin Coolidge (R): 1,616,058 (36.3%)
Robert LaFollette (Prog): 238,725 (5.4%)

1920:

James Cox (D): 2,523,393 (54.7%)
Warren Harding (R): 1,939,361 (42.0%)

1916:

Woodrow Wilson (D): 1,887,008 (63.4%)
Charles Hughes (R): 949,394 (31.9%)

1912:

Woodrow Wilson (D): 1,485,420 (59.0%)
William Taft (R): 455,183 (18.1%)
Theodore Roosevelt (Prog): 437,560 (17.4%)

1908:

William Bryan (D): 1,501,660 (57.9%)
William Taft (R): 986,616 (38.1%)

1904:

Alton Parker (D): 1,229,515 (59.9%)
Theodore Roosevelt (R): 737,993 (35.9%)

1900:

William Bryan (D): 1,490,748 (58.0%)
William McKinley (R): 1,015,023 (39.5%)

1896:

William Bryan (D): 1,745,465 (59.6%)
William McKinley (R): 1,130,301 (38.6%)

1892:

Grover Cleveland (D): 1,500,835 (56.6%)
Benjamin Harrison (R): 757,249 (28.6%)
James Weaver (Pop): 364,006 (13.7%)

1888:

Grover Cleveland (D): 1,535,728 (58.9%)
Benjamin Harrison (R): 1,004,340 (38.5%)

1884:

Grover Cleveland (D): 1,369,745 (58.2%)
James Blaine (R): 961,793 (40.9%)

1880:

Winfield Hancock (D): 1,279,146 (58.7%)
James Garfield (R): 825,363 (37.9%)

1876:

Samuel Tilden (D): 1,308,472 (59.7%)
Rutherford Hayes (R): 879,376 (40.1%)

1872:

Ulysses Grant (R): 880,530 (52.6%)
Horace Greeley (D): 787,405 (47.0%)

1868:

Horatio Seymour (D): 567,051 (54.5%)
Ulysses Grant (R): 473,600 (45.5%)

1860:

John Breckinridge (SD): 490,262 (48.9%)
John Bell (CU): 411,742 (41.1%)
Stephen Douglas (D): 97,553 (9.7%)

*Assuming all the Unpledged votes in Alabama were Johnson votes, Johnson's vote total goes up to 8,035,301 and his percentage goes up to 53.3%.

[Heimdal]

It just goes to show that Barry Goldwater and The Civil Rights Act (and later Nixon and the Southern Strategy) is given far too much credit in turning the South to the GOP. The South was moving towards the GOP even before Eisenhower appeared.

[MATTROSE94]

It just goes to show that Barry Goldwater and The Civil Rights Act (and later Nixon and the Southern Strategy) is given far too much credit in turning the South to the GOP. The South was moving towards the GOP even before Eisenhower appeared.

I am thinking that part of the reason why the South began to turn towards the Republicans in the  1950s was due to population changes, as many people from the Northern and Midwestern states who voted Republican began to move to the South in order to take advantage of the booming economy of the era.

[ElectionsGuy]

It just goes to show that Barry Goldwater and The Civil Rights Act (and later Nixon and the Southern Strategy) is given far too much credit in turning the South to the GOP. The South was moving towards the GOP even before Eisenhower appeared.

I am thinking that part of the reason why the South began to turn towards the Republicans in the  1950s was due to population changes, as many people from the Northern and Midwestern states who voted Republican began to move to the South in order to take advantage of the booming economy of the era.

This is true for Florida (especially), Texas, and Virginia. However for the deep south there was obviously other reasons. The republican party was becoming more conservative, the democratic party more liberal. Endorsement of civil rights in 1948 by democrats turned them off of the democratic party, and some conservatives started using small government reasons to be against government intervention in segregated schools, 'forced busing', etc. and to generally argue that its a states rights issue.

[TDAS04]

It just goes to show that Barry Goldwater and The Civil Rights Act (and later Nixon and the Southern Strategy) is given far too much credit in turning the South to the GOP. The South was moving towards the GOP even before Eisenhower appeared.

You're right about the non-Deep South, but not the Deep South.  Goldwater was the first GOP candidate to win any Deep South state (he carried all five) since Reconstruction (except for Ike winning Louisiana in 1956).

[buritobr]

Comparing the Southern vote to the National vote

2012: R+14,0
2008: R+14,8
2004: R+12,7
2000: R+11,8
1996: R+8,4
1992: R+6,8
1988: R+8,6
1984: R+6,9
1980: D+2,5
1976: D+6,9
1972: R+16,7
1968: R+3,2
1964: R+17,3
1960: D+1,8
1956: D+12,4
1952: D+13,2
1948: D+17,7
1944: D+27,1
1940: D+31,7
1936: D+23,2
1932: D+29,5

[MATTROSE94]

It just goes to show that Barry Goldwater and The Civil Rights Act (and later Nixon and the Southern Strategy) is given far too much credit in turning the South to the GOP. The South was moving towards the GOP even before Eisenhower appeared.

I am thinking that part of the reason why the South began to turn towards the Republicans in the  1950s was due to population changes, as many people from the Northern and Midwestern states who voted Republican began to move to the South in order to take advantage of the booming economy of the era.

This is true for Florida (especially), Texas, and Virginia. However for the deep south there was obviously other reasons. The republican party was becoming more conservative, the democratic party more liberal. Endorsement of civil rights in 1948 by democrats turned them off of the democratic party, and some conservatives started using small government reasons to be against government intervention in segregated schools, 'forced busing', etc. and to generally argue that its a states rights issue.

Good point. From what I can gather, there were some signs that the Upper South was shifting towards the Republicans as early as 1948, as Thomas Dewey only lost Tennessee by 13 points and came within 7 points of carrying Virginia. We then saw a huge shift of parts of the South in 1952, as Dwight Eisenhower ended up carrying Virginia, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma and Florida against Adlai Stevenson.

I agree that racial factors played a larger role in shifting the Deep South towards the Republican Party, though that shift did not become that apparent until the 1962 midterm elections. In the Senate races that year, James Martin came within a point of defeating incumbent Democrat Lister Hill in Alabama (I believe that Martin ran well to Hill's right on racial issues and accused him of not sufficiently standing up for segregation) and, W.D. Workman was able to hold Olin B. Johnston below 60% of the vote in South Carolina. In addition, even though they were not able to pick up any House seats in the Deep South, Republican candidates were able to gain some ground in several states such as Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina. It just so happens that at the time of the 1962 midterms, there was some talk beginning by the Kennedy Administration and congressional Democrats about proposing sweeping civil rights legislation within the coming congressional sessions.

[Heimdal]

It just goes to show that Barry Goldwater and The Civil Rights Act (and later Nixon and the Southern Strategy) is given far too much credit in turning the South to the GOP. The South was moving towards the GOP even before Eisenhower appeared.

I am thinking that part of the reason why the South began to turn towards the Republicans in the  1950s was due to population changes, as many people from the Northern and Midwestern states who voted Republican began to move to the South in order to take advantage of the booming economy of the era.

This is true for Florida (especially), Texas, and Virginia. However for the deep south there was obviously other reasons. The republican party was becoming more conservative, the democratic party more liberal. Endorsement of civil rights in 1948 by democrats turned them off of the democratic party, and some conservatives started using small government reasons to be against government intervention in segregated schools, 'forced busing', etc. and to generally argue that its a states rights issue.

Good point. From what I can gather, there were some signs that the Upper South was shifting towards the Republicans as early as 1948, as Thomas Dewey only lost Tennessee by 13 points and came within 7 points of carrying Virginia. We then saw a huge shift of parts of the South in 1952, as Dwight Eisenhower ended up carrying Virginia, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma and Florida against Adlai Stevenson.

I agree that racial factors played a larger role in shifting the Deep South towards the Republican Party, though that shift did not become that apparent until the 1962 midterm elections. In the Senate races that year, James Martin came within a point of defeating incumbent Democrat Lister Hill in Alabama (I believe that Martin ran well to Hill's right on racial issues and accused him of not sufficiently standing up for segregation) and, W.D. Workman was able to hold Olin B. Johnston below 60% of the vote in South Carolina. In addition, even though they were not able to pick up any House seats in the Deep South, Republican candidates were able to gain some ground in several states such as Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina. It just so happens that at the time of the 1962 midterms, there was some talk beginning by the Kennedy Administration and congressional Democrats about proposing sweeping civil rights legislation within the coming congressional sessions.

I believe the Upper South was shifting even before 1948. Take for example the Republican landslide victories in the 1920s: Harding carried Tennessee in 1920, Coolidge won Kentucky in 1924 (while losing Tennessee) and Hoover actually won Virginia, North Carolina as well as the aforementioned states in 1928. It is no wonder that it was these states that first broke off from the “Solid South”.  The Appalachian Mountains regions of Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina had been dominated by the GOP for a long time, and East Tennessee had been Republican territory since The Civil War. That means that these states had the embryo of a two-party system earlier than other areas of the South. 

[Heimdal]

It just goes to show that Barry Goldwater and The Civil Rights Act (and later Nixon and the Southern Strategy) is given far too much credit in turning the South to the GOP. The South was moving towards the GOP even before Eisenhower appeared.

You're right about the non-Deep South, but not the Deep South.  Goldwater was the first GOP candidate to win any Deep South state (he carried all five) since Reconstruction (except for Ike winning Louisiana in 1956).

It is clear that the states of the Deep South were far more heavily Democratic that the Jacksonian Border States (for a variety of reasons), but I think racial issues and civil rights just accelerated a process that was already well underway. Take for example the 1968 US Presidential Election in Georgia. That was a three-way race between Republicans, Democrats and Dixiecrats. Nixon won over 30 % of the vote. The last time the vote was split between three candidates (1948), the Republican candidate got 18 % of the vote. That means that the Republican base in the state had grown by a lot from 1948 to 1968. Race doesn’t really explain it either in 1968, since Georgians were able to vote for an open segregationist in that election (Wallace).

[ElectionsGuy]

1856:

James Buchanan (D) - 503,049 (57.3%)
Millard Fillmore (W) - 375,259 (42.7%)

1852:

Franklin Pierce (D) - 367,492 (54.8%)
Winfield Scott (W) - 295,597 (44.0%)

1848:

Zachary Taylor (W) - 359,413 (52.0%)
Lewis Cass (D) - 331,307 (48.0%)

1844:

James Polk (D) - 332,593 (51.3%)
Henry Clay (W) - 314,328 (48.7%)

1840:

William Harrison (W) - 312,711 (55.0%)
Martin Van Buren (D) - 255,776 (45.0%)

1836:

Martin Van Buren (D) - 176,521 (50.1%)
Hugh White (W) - 138,770 (39.4%)
William Harrison (W) - 36,861 (10.5%)

1832:

Andrew Jackson (D) - 168,568 (72.7%)
Henry Clay (NR) - 63,204 (27.3%)

1828:

Andrew Jackson (D) - 195,735 (77.2%)
John Q. Adams (NR) - 57,879 (22.8%)

I'm somewhat surprised that South Carolina didn't even hold a popular vote for presidential elections until 1868, when they were forced to.

[Skill and Chance]

Very strange that Obama 2012 actually out-performed Gore 2000.  We should probably define a South Florida and Northern Virginia to exclude from these totals post-2000 at least, maybe post-1992. 

[buritobr]

By observing the counties, it was possible to see that outside the black belt, the counties with Hispanic population, big cities, college towns and DC metro area, Obama was the second worst democrat in the South, better than McGovern only. In rural baptist white counties, Obama did worse than Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. In absolute percentages. I am not talking only about distance to the national vote.

[Maistre]

I'm somewhat surprised that South Carolina didn't even hold a popular vote for presidential elections until 1868, when they were forced to.

Why is it surprising? The same was true with the governor until 1865.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm somewhat surprised that South Carolina didn't even hold a popular vote for presidential elections until 1868, when they were forced to.

Why is it surprising? The same was true with the governor until 1865.

Well... most states had popular vote by the 1820's. Its just sort of surprising that it took that long for it to happen.

[Maistre]

I'm somewhat surprised that South Carolina didn't even hold a popular vote for presidential elections until 1868, when they were forced to.

Why is it surprising? The same was true with the governor until 1865.

Well... most states had popular vote by the 1820's. Its just sort of surprising that it took that long for it to happen.

Well, you see my good man, South Carolina is not "most states," she is truly a diamond among the rocks.

[GaussLaw]

I'm somewhat surprised that South Carolina didn't even hold a popular vote for presidential elections until 1868, when they were forced to.

Why is it surprising? The same was true with the governor until 1865.

Well... most states had popular vote by the 1820's. Its just sort of surprising that it took that long for it to happen.

Well, you see my good man, South Carolina is not "most states," she is truly a diamond among the rocks.

Explain why not having a popular vote for decades after other states makes one a "diamond among the rocks."

[dmmidmi]

Comparing the Southern vote to the National vote

2012: R+14,0
2008: R+14,8
2004: R+12,7
2000: R+11,8
1996: R+8,4
1992: R+6,8
1988: R+8,6
1984: R+6,9
1980: D+2,5
1976: D+6,9
1972: R+16,7
1968: R+3,2
1964: R+17,3
1960: D+1,8
1956: D+12,4
1952: D+13,2
1948: D+17,7
1944: D+27,1
1940: D+31,7
1936: D+23,2
1932: D+29,5

This is a much better way of looking at it. The massive drop between 1956 and 1960 has been explained over and over, but I'd be curious to know more about the 10-point drop from 1944 to 1948.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Comparing the Southern vote to the National vote

2012: R+14,0
2008: R+14,8
2004: R+12,7
2000: R+11,8
1996: R+8,4
1992: R+6,8
1988: R+8,6
1984: R+6,9
1980: D+2,5
1976: D+6,9
1972: R+16,7
1968: R+3,2
1964: R+17,3
1960: D+1,8
1956: D+12,4
1952: D+13,2
1948: D+17,7
1944: D+27,1
1940: D+31,7
1936: D+23,2
1932: D+29,5

This is a much better way of looking at it. The massive drop between 1956 and 1960 has been explained over and over, but I'd be curious to know more about the 10-point drop from 1944 to 1948.

1948 was the first time Democrats included Civil Rights in their platform (resulting in Thurmond's candidacy).

[Adam Griffin]

[tpfkaw]

You have the opposite margins for Carter on that graph. (Should be D+6.9 and D+2.5).

Also, the "Southern Strategy" is largely a myth; if you actually read The Emerging Republican Majority you see that the Nixonians' strategy was almost entirely focused on attempting to flip large northeastern and midwestern urban areas, while almost no attention is paid to the South besides assuming that the "New South" of VA, FL, and TX will flip on its own because of economic issues.

[Maistre]

The Republicanization of the South is a bit more complex than the Southern Strategy turning a bunch of racists Republican in one election. There were sort of two 'waves' of Republicanization:

1. Demographic changes:

A). Northern migrants were moving to better business opportunities in the emerging 'sun belt.' This had particular effect in Florida. These migrants move into the South with no birthright allegiance to the Democratic Party and provided a base of support in Southern states similar to the mountain Republicans in TN and NC.

B). Native Southerners from small towns and farms moved to urban and suburban areas and into the middle class. These people identified the GOP as the party of low spending, anti-Communism and low taxes, which is what they saw as in their own interests.

These newcomers to Southern cities and suburban areas did not have connections to the Southern elite, so they found a pathway to social 'acceptance' through the GOP.

2. Goldwater

The third branch of Republicanism in the new South was the Goldwater candidacy and the enthusiasm it ensued among Southern whites. They were conservative on racial and economic issues. Goldwater actually declined a bit among the more established Republicans in the mountains and in the cities, but more than half of the counties that he won in the South had never voted Republican before.

I cooked up a map of South Carolina's Republican vote in 1964 and 1964, and the swing from 1960 to 1964:



There also is some correlation between that swing and the Wallace vote in 1968:

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You have the opposite margins for Carter on that graph. (Should be D+6.9 and D+2.5).

Also, the "Southern Strategy" is largely a myth; if you actually read The Emerging Republican Majority you see that the Nixonians' strategy was almost entirely focused on attempting to flip large northeastern and midwestern urban areas, while almost no attention is paid to the South besides assuming that the "New South" of VA, FL, and TX will flip on its own because of economic issues.

Kevin Phillips spoke of a strategy in the "Outer South" to capitalize on a sense of disconnection from the liberal causes of the national Democratic Party establishment.

[tpfkaw]

You have the opposite margins for Carter on that graph. (Should be D+6.9 and D+2.5).

Also, the "Southern Strategy" is largely a myth; if you actually read The Emerging Republican Majority you see that the Nixonians' strategy was almost entirely focused on attempting to flip large northeastern and midwestern urban areas, while almost no attention is paid to the South besides assuming that the "New South" of VA, FL, and TX will flip on its own because of economic issues.

Kevin Phillips spoke of a strategy in the "Outer South" to capitalize on a sense of disconnection from the liberal causes of the national Democratic Party establishment.

It's been a couple years since I read it but I remember being struck (given my expectations) about how little space he devoted to discussing the South; IIRC more of the book is devoted to discussing Maryland than the entire South combined. As I recall even Massachusetts received quite a few more pages than any Southern state.

[Beezer]

But then again Phillips wasn't the only one drawing up Republican electoral strategies during the 1960s and 70s so I don't think one can claim that the Southern Strategy was a "myth" based solely on his book. The move to the right on racial and social issues was always going to lead to the biggest windfall in the most racially and socially conservative part of the nation (ie the South). This of course doesn't mean though that the strategy was a strictly regional one seeing as the "white ethnics" Nixon targetted could primarily be found outside the great "Anglo-Saxon Southland."

[Maistre]

There also is some correlation between that swing and the Wallace vote in 1968:

Similarly in NC: