Who was the last republican nominee to win new york city?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:11:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Who was the last republican nominee to win new york city?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Who was the last republican nominee to win new york city?  (Read 10242 times)
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 08, 2014, 11:26:08 AM »

It surprises me that both the "progressive/liberal" republican party of the 19th and early 20th century and the conservative republican party of today both get crushed there.

Did NYC switch from conservatism to liberalism at the same time the Rs switched from liberalism to conservativism?

As has been stated, I think Mechaman should be required reading for you. Smiley
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 08, 2014, 11:54:13 AM »

If its relevant at all, I think I heard once that Lower Manhattan is the most consistently Democratic-voting part of the country throughout history and that the demographics of LM and the ideological favor of the Democrats have tended to "evolve together" for almost the entirety of American history. 

Basically, I've basically heard Lower Manhattan called the Democrats' answer to the strangely consistently-Republican Eastern Tennessee.   
Logged
KCDem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,928


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 08, 2014, 01:10:53 PM »


1972? Nixon won Staten Island and Queens and came close in Brooklyn.

State Island isn't NYC lol
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 08, 2014, 01:57:16 PM »

It surprises me that both the "progressive/liberal" republican party of the 19th and early 20th century and the conservative republican party of today both get crushed there.

Did NYC switch from conservatism to liberalism at the same time the Rs switched from liberalism to conservativism?

The Republicans have generally always been the party of business and of religiously (Protestant) motivated crusades (In those day's abolition and prohibition/temperance, as well as the public schools).

All of those reforms were opposed by the German and Irish Catholic immigrant groups. Abolition would bring blacks into competition for their jobs whilst slavery kept them safely down south (Dred Scott is in my view the key that causes this viewpoint to shift as it raised the specter of slavery itself bringing about that very competition. Hence why Lincoln emphasized "all Slave or all free". It was brilliant political strategy as it forced these pro-slavery northerns to flip and vote for a moderate anti-slavery Republian like Lincoln both in 1858 [he won the collective popular vote but lost since Senators were elected by state legislature] and 1860. This did not include NYC where Lincoln lost and barely carried the state by a narrow margin thanks to solid support upstate and NYC was one of the hotbeds of copperhead sympath during the war (Fernando Wood?) as well as the site of the NYC draft riots (those same pro-slavery working class Irish Democrats against the blacks)). Prohibition of alcohol interferred with the strong heritage of strong spirits and beer amongst those immigrant groups. Also the Republicans being of Congregational (Puritan) New England and Midwestern stock largely, preferred that the King James Bible be read in said public schools and Catholic immigrants wanted nothing to do with that. So instead they opened parochial schools and Republicans tried to ban school choice to force them to go to public schools and be tought the "good (Protestant) Christian education lest they be condemned to hell for eternity".

German immigrants typically did not have any particular opposition to abolition itself.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act was deeply unpopular, and the "forty eighter" immigrants especially were strongly anti slavery. The main obstacle to German immigrants in supporting the Free Soil and Republican parties was the association with nativism and prohibition, and the traditional allegiance to Democrats of German Americans from older waves of immigration. Germans ended up voting Republican, bringing an anti-nativist, anti-prohibition voice into the party.
Looking at the House vote on the 18th amendment,  the Republican and Democratic parties both voted roughly 2-1 in favor.  The opposition to prohibition among Democrats in the North was overwhelmed by the support for it among Democrats in the rest of the country.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: December 08, 2014, 09:49:34 PM »

It surprises me that both the "progressive/liberal" republican party of the 19th and early 20th century and the conservative republican party of today both get crushed there.

Did NYC switch from conservatism to liberalism at the same time the Rs switched from liberalism to conservativism?

The Republicans have generally always been the party of business and of religiously (Protestant) motivated crusades (In those day's abolition and prohibition/temperance, as well as the public schools).

All of those reforms were opposed by the German and Irish Catholic immigrant groups. Abolition would bring blacks into competition for their jobs whilst slavery kept them safely down south (Dred Scott is in my view the key that causes this viewpoint to shift as it raised the specter of slavery itself bringing about that very competition. Hence why Lincoln emphasized "all Slave or all free". It was brilliant political strategy as it forced these pro-slavery northerns to flip and vote for a moderate anti-slavery Republian like Lincoln both in 1858 [he won the collective popular vote but lost since Senators were elected by state legislature] and 1860. This did not include NYC where Lincoln lost and barely carried the state by a narrow margin thanks to solid support upstate and NYC was one of the hotbeds of copperhead sympath during the war (Fernando Wood?) as well as the site of the NYC draft riots (those same pro-slavery working class Irish Democrats against the blacks)). Prohibition of alcohol interferred with the strong heritage of strong spirits and beer amongst those immigrant groups. Also the Republicans being of Congregational (Puritan) New England and Midwestern stock largely, preferred that the King James Bible be read in said public schools and Catholic immigrants wanted nothing to do with that. So instead they opened parochial schools and Republicans tried to ban school choice to force them to go to public schools and be tought the "good (Protestant) Christian education lest they be condemned to hell for eternity".

German immigrants typically did not have any particular opposition to abolition itself.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act was deeply unpopular, and the "forty eighter" immigrants especially were strongly anti slavery. The main obstacle to German immigrants in supporting the Free Soil and Republican parties was the association with nativism and prohibition, and the traditional allegiance to Democrats of German Americans from older waves of immigration. Germans ended up voting Republican, bringing an anti-nativist, anti-prohibition voice into the party.
Looking at the House vote on the 18th amendment,  the Republican and Democratic parties both voted roughly 2-1 in favor.  The opposition to prohibition among Democrats in the North was overwhelmed by the support for it among Democrats in the rest of the country.

That is correct, my point was never to say that thse three items determined equally and fully on each immigrant group, but from amongst them at least one of two of those matters made the GOP a rather unappealing group to immigrants overall and especially to the Irish for whome all three probably applied at one time at several different instances prior to the Civil War. That said when the GOP did bottle it up and focus on the matter of containing slavery, especially once its preservation was no longer a gurrantee of keeping "them down south", the Republicans did rather well amongst Germans. And then in 1874 and 1884 they made the mistake of letting loose that sentiment and they lost.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: December 08, 2014, 10:12:16 PM »

The Republican Party isn't the party of business, the Republican Party is not the party of religious zealotry, the Republican Party is not the party of nativism etc. These terms strike me as being very imprecise, especially when you're describing the core values of a diverse party that has existed for 170 years.

The Republican Party has consistently throughout its history been the favored party of business throughout its existance. Were their progressive elements like TR and alike in the party, yes, because Party's are coalitions and also that in that era, wealth, ethnicity and money determined party as well as geography. But can you really say that TR was more then an aberation when you look at the consistent corporatism of the 1800's, the laissez faire 1920's, 1930's opposition to the New Deal and so on through the 20th century. A lot changes, my purpose to indentify what largely stays the same so as to connect these Parties throughout history. It is easier for someone who is not a Republican to do because the easiest path is through the cynical approach of a Mechaman.

The Republican Party has consistently been dominated by Protestant religious groups (and I would point out that New England Puritans and Southern Baptists today, both shared a Calvinist connection). They then have been the vehicle by which those political views were translated into policy from a moralistic perspective. From the end of prohibition, to rise of the moral majority, there is a mere gap of 40 years, and then we get a return to the norm for the GOP (not a takeover by theocrats or some flipping of the Parties). Protestant religious fervor had bled away in New England and only the prsence of the new Southern base allowed the GOP to return unto itself, almost the exact opposite of the narrative of the Parties flipping.

As for nativism/reluctance towards immigration, the range of viewpoints from opposing immigration entirely to limiting it or expressing reluctance in this day and age has almost consistently been expressed through the Republican Party more so then the Democratic Party. Even when the whole of the South was Democratic, the GOP still led them on this front leading the drive to restrict immigration in the mid 1920's.

The Republican Party is a sprawling big tent coalition that serves many interests and goals depending on the locale and its support base. A few decades it was an entirely different beast than it was in 2014, just as the Republican Party of the 1950s was an entirely different beast than the Republican Party of the 1980s. I think you're making the classic mistake of treating interests in a big tent, two-party system as static variables. In the American two party system, there has always been the presence of dynamic push-pull factors that destroy the notion of static coalitions, which are constantly shifting.

As for the comment about plantation owners, there's a reason why I used the term "former plantation owners": I was clearly alluding to the period after Reconstruction in the South.

The Republican Party of the 1950's though was at best an aberation determined by the fact that the North had changed, The South was still Democratic and therefore that left but one option and that was to change with the times in those regions. That is the source of Dewey and Rockefeller. But notice how long it lasted, when it came to choosing between a pro-business big gov't liberal party, and a Conservative Republican Party that sustained itself off of the South and West, it is patently obvious where the Party went. Not to change itself into something it had not been, but to prserve its own core objectives. Did the Party change, yes, but it didn't change on that key front and that is my point. THe price has been ideological polarization as liberals realized the GOP had made its choice and the Conservatives likewise with the Democrats.

I have stated repeatedly that the Parties were divided ideologically precisely because of that voting along cultural, ethnic, geographic, religious and income lines and that such gave way once ideology took paramount. But what is the political understanding of ideology and is not the political construction of certain lead figures. The Democrats want to help the poor and middle class, using gov't as a tool. The Democrats have always claimed to do the former, they just came to embrace the latter as the tool to do that about midway through their existance. The Reagan Conservative wants a strong military (goes all the way back to the beginning), strong economy by getting gov't outo f the way of business (business loved gov't in 1789 a big difference that is forgotten also and that didn't change until the Progressive Era), and traditional values (with a strong religious motivation, goes all the way back).

I barely even touched on defense and crime and other such issues where the Republican Party (or at least the one that only likes gov't when it does what it wants) acts very much like the Federalist Party of Adams and Hamilton even as they use the rhetoric and tools of Jefferson and Madison. There is a reason for that. 
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 08, 2014, 11:23:12 PM »

It was actually from a correspondant, not a congressman but I found the quote:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The man referenced was Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 09, 2014, 01:28:49 AM »

I do think that comparing politics of that era is difficult. For one thing, its hard to ascribe motives to people voting. You may think all voters have the same amount of information as we do, but 75% of voters are low information voters, so the idea of a rational voter is a myth.

As to the coalitions, it changes rather rapidly. The elections from 1868-1892 were largely civil war rematches with a lot of gridlock.

The time from 1896-1928 I call the "radical era". The republicans usually dominated in this period but even then there was a lot of third party movements (which was evident even before 1896 with the James Weaver candidacy and the Grange movement). The 1896 election saw the democrats absorb much of those movements and was the beginning of the party as a class warfare one. The republicans also saw a break in ranks between populist (LaFollette, TR) and the business oriented ones (Coolidge, William Taft). But the 1920-1928 period was a harbinger of things to come. The republicans romped in all three elections but the coalitions were different (no doubt the result in immigrants finally voting). This is especially true in the midwest. LaFollette and Bryan's base of support were different. Bryan's base was farmers who were temporarily aggrieved but otherwise an anglo, christian conservative constituency.  LaFollette's base was in the upper midwest (MN, WI especially) where Bryan hadn't done all that well. His base was among Scandinavian and other immigrant heavy areas of the midwest. In 1920 the most republican midwestern states (not counting southern-influenced MO and IN) were North Dakota and Wisconsin while the least republican were KS and NE (with some remnants of Bryan democrats). By 1928 that had flipped.
 
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 09, 2014, 01:37:19 AM »
« Edited: December 09, 2014, 01:40:52 AM by freepcrusher »

So you had many tenuous groups that the republicans had a hold on in the 1920s

rural ethnic (german catholic and Scandinavian) voters who supported Harding in 1920 due to isolationism, voted for LaFollette in 1924, and was evenly split in 1928.

progressive republicans - this was not the Nelson Rockefeller or John Lindsays of later years but were in places like northern CA, WA, MT, ID. They voted republican in 1920 and 1928 but supported LaFollette in 1924.

Various southern constituencies - places like Middle Tennessee, Central/Southern Oklahoma, West Texas, the Piedmont etc who supported Cox and Davis but refused to vote for a catholic in 1928.

Immigrant groups - largely gaining in influence as they were becoming eligible to vote. Either didn't vote or voted republican in 1920 (due to dislike of Wilson foreign policy) and voted pretty evenly between LaFollette, Davis and Coolidge in 1924. Voted heavily for Smith in 1928.

Basically, if the dems could win all four groups, they would have an impressive coalition. All the republicans would have would be Anglo-Saxon rural areas (i.e. rural Northeast and the non-scandinavian, non-butternut areas of the midwest).

I might add that there were different strains of WASPs in the republican party. Much of New England was of a Unitarian/Anglican background that tended to be more moderate. Those that settled in the midwest (Kansas, Indiana) tended to be more of a Calvinist bent.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 09, 2014, 02:56:47 AM »
« Edited: December 09, 2014, 03:22:39 AM by Senator North Carolina Yankee »

I might add that there were different strains of WASPs in the republican party. Much of New England was of a Unitarian/Anglican background that tended to be more moderate. Those that settled in the midwest (Kansas, Indiana) tended to be more of a Calvinist bent.

The story of New England in terms of Protestant Religious fervor amongst the Congregationalists at least, is one of steady decline. By the 20th century that was coming into full force, but the politics lagged considerably in this and therefore it was not until the mid 20th century that you began to see liberals like Aiken and Progressives like Prouty representing Vermont, whereas prior to them it was much more of the traditionalist almost paleoconservative bent that represented the state, who had by 1958 become unelectable in the state. Maine elected a similarly conservative Republican as late as 1946, and NH had Conservative Senators until 1960's and 1970's. The liberalism of the GOP establishment in Northeast (depending on your definition) is a post New Deal impact to respond to the demographic changes, both in the form of immigrants and increased unionization and as well as changes within the traditional GOP Yankee base in the region.

Also your previous point about voter awarenss is big. Voters weren't as informed as they are today and voted based on tribalism a lot, a point I have made at several points in this thread. And so yes you had liberals voting for the GOP because they had abolished slavery even though the PArty was hardly liberal overall (and such would be the case throughout 90% of its history). You had two ideological wings in both parties, a split on foreign policy in the GOP and the Wet/Anti-KKK versus Dry/Pro-KKK divide within the Democrats. That is why emphasizing the composition of the coalitions (and its changes over time) is not as indicative as my friend from Idaho would like to contend. They were such because the Party presented their bs in a way that seemed benign or relied a lot on sheer ignorance and legacy voting. That goes for both parties. These were both top down machines for much of the time that we are discussing and therefore it makes sense. No one doubts that The GOP was a corporatist shill in the 1880's, but a lot of working class voters voted for Harrison because of the tarriff. That hardly makes the GOP any less corporatist obviously.

You need to consider that those Calvinists in KS, IN, OH and MI came from New England.  Their seperation may have proved to be what preserved their Calvinism as it bled away in the home region. Also the use of the term moderate is rather misleading considering it is perhaps the most variable of any term throguhout history and could mean absolutely anything. It is fairly clear that the EAst in general was the more Conservative region within the GOP pre-New Deal. Most of the Progressives were out west with a few exceptions and most of their opponents were in the East like Wadsworth, Hanna, Penrose (I make policies beneficial to business and you reward me by donating to my campaign. He said that publically to a business group), Reed, Gillett, Aldrich to some extent, and of course Cannon being the farthest West in Illinois. You also had the anti-immigrant GOP politicians in rural protestant New England.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 09, 2014, 05:22:33 PM »

You need to consider that those Calvinists in KS, IN, OH and MI came from New England.  Their seperation may have proved to be what preserved their Calvinism as it bled away in the home region.

But what explains the fact that as early as the 1830s, Boston was a hotbed of left-wing religious views (Transcendentalists, Unitarians)? These type of people were like Emerson or Thoreau. Going back even further, the calvinists were kicked out of Harvard in 1805. This was before many of those midwestern states were even settled.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: December 09, 2014, 06:03:27 PM »

i do think though that SNCY is on to something. The Fish family is a case-in-point in the evolution. Hamilton Fish Sr was a typical interwar Coolidge-ite RWer. His son, who was in the U.S. House in the 70s and 80s, was more of a "peacemaker" republican (similar to Chris Gibson who now represents some of that seat). Hamilton Fish III, who ran against Ben Gilman in the early 90s, was a down-the-line liberal democrat.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 09, 2014, 11:49:58 PM »

You need to consider that those Calvinists in KS, IN, OH and MI came from New England.  Their seperation may have proved to be what preserved their Calvinism as it bled away in the home region.

But what explains the fact that as early as the 1830s, Boston was a hotbed of left-wing religious views (Transcendentalists, Unitarians)? These type of people were like Emerson or Thoreau. Going back even further, the calvinists were kicked out of Harvard in 1805. This was before many of those midwestern states were even settled.

Boston was a hot-bed of "left-wing" religious views going back to the 1630s. As soon as the Puritans stepped off the boat, they had people wanting to take their spiritual and political vision for the community in a different direction from the new establishment. It's the protesting spirit of radical Protestantism crashing in on itself.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2014, 03:06:04 PM »

Javits won NYC in 1962 and 1968.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 13, 2014, 07:57:17 PM »

Are you kidding me? Voter turnout was higher in the 1830s than it was in the 1930s, and in both cases there were no property requirements. The idea that the common man didn't participate in politics before the 1930s is absolutely ridiculous and unsupported by any historical context. If anything, the period since 1932 has seen DECLINING rates of voter participation in politics.

Women and blacks, among others, couldn't vote in 1830.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 12 queries.