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

[freepcrusher]

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.
 

[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.

[freepcrusher]

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.

[freepcrusher]

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.