Black vote in 1952
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:11:30 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)
  Black vote in 1952
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Black vote in 1952  (Read 2943 times)
Thunderbird is the word
Zen Lunatic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,021


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 18, 2016, 01:26:06 PM »

In 1952 Stevenson managed to win 79% of the black (or nonwhite) vote according to Gallup. Given that he picked a dixiecrat as his running mate and given that Eisenhower won in such a massive landslide i'm kind of surprised that he didn't do worse: http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx
Logged
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 769
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2016, 03:33:03 PM »

The black vote shifted to Dems during FDR and the New Deal.  I think in 1956 Eisenhower got around 40% of the black vote.  Nixon got 32% in 1960; JFK did well because he made that crucial phone call to Coretta Scott King, expressing his support for her husband who was jailed in Alabama and then worked for his release. The shift in black vote towards JFK made a difference in Illinois and several other key states.  Since then, no Republican has done better than 14% with black voters (Reagan 1980). As a Republican, this is one of the things that bothers me the most.
Logged
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2016, 07:10:17 PM »

Sparkman was among the most liberal Southern senators - as liberal as you could be while remaining a Dixiecrat in good establishment standing (excluding renegades like Kefauver).
Logged
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,607


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2016, 05:35:56 PM »

The counties map of Mississippi in 1952 was the opposite of the maps of the recent times. Eisenhower won the counties of the black belt. Maybe, the few blacks who could vote in Mississippi voted for Eisenhower.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2016, 12:17:04 PM »

That Eisenhower percentage in 1956, was what made the Dem northern political bosses to embrace the Civil Rights movement. They realized that they would be toast if they did not.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2016, 12:33:05 PM »

That Eisenhower percentage in 1956, was what made the Dem northern political bosses to embrace the Civil Rights movement. They realized that they would be toast if they did not.

It also convinced many Republicans that even a defiantly pro-civil rights GOP (instead of a publicly supportive, privately ambivalent one) wouldn't win back Black voters.
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 #6 on: September 07, 2016, 05:12:43 PM »

The counties map of Mississippi in 1952 was the opposite of the maps of the recent times. Eisenhower won the counties of the black belt. Maybe, the few blacks who could vote in Mississippi voted for Eisenhower.

It's more likely that blacks in Mississippi were prevented from voting, which you'll see reflected in the raw vote totals in those black belt counties.  What this tells us is that the whites who lived in majority-black communities were voting for Eisenhower.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2016, 06:04:27 PM »

The counties map of Mississippi in 1952 was the opposite of the maps of the recent times. Eisenhower won the counties of the black belt. Maybe, the few blacks who could vote in Mississippi voted for Eisenhower.

It's more likely that blacks in Mississippi were prevented from voting, which you'll see reflected in the raw vote totals in those black belt counties.  What this tells us is that the whites who lived in majority-black communities were voting for Eisenhower.

While probably true, there's pretty good evidence that Blacks who could vote in the South voted slightly to the right of Blacks in the North for quite a while.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2016, 07:25:34 PM »

In 1952 Stevenson managed to win 79% of the black (or nonwhite) vote according to Gallup. Given that he picked a dixiecrat as his running mate and given that Eisenhower won in such a massive landslide i'm kind of surprised that he didn't do worse: http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx
I knew Stevenson won the black vote, but 79 percent?  Isn't that better than Kennedy?  That number sounds artificially high.

Either way, blacks were becoming yellow dog Democrats even before LBJ signed the CRA.  So much for the liberal fairy tale about the two parties "switching sides" on race after that.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2016, 07:52:17 PM »

The counties map of Mississippi in 1952 was the opposite of the maps of the recent times. Eisenhower won the counties of the black belt. Maybe, the few blacks who could vote in Mississippi voted for Eisenhower.

It's more likely that blacks in Mississippi were prevented from voting, which you'll see reflected in the raw vote totals in those black belt counties.  What this tells us is that the whites who lived in majority-black communities were voting for Eisenhower.

While probably true, there's pretty good evidence that Blacks who could vote in the South voted slightly to the right of Blacks in the North for quite a while.

You mean more Republican? Only Texas and parts of TVA country had any sort of progressive movement in that period.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2016, 11:26:45 PM »

The counties map of Mississippi in 1952 was the opposite of the maps of the recent times. Eisenhower won the counties of the black belt. Maybe, the few blacks who could vote in Mississippi voted for Eisenhower.

It's more likely that blacks in Mississippi were prevented from voting, which you'll see reflected in the raw vote totals in those black belt counties.  What this tells us is that the whites who lived in majority-black communities were voting for Eisenhower.

While probably true, there's pretty good evidence that Blacks who could vote in the South voted slightly to the right of Blacks in the North for quite a while.

You mean more Republican? Only Texas and parts of TVA country had any sort of progressive movement in that period.

Yes, of course I mean more Republican, because they were voting for a party that was objectively to the right of the Democrats on economic and class issues - the only two types that any serious person compares across multiple decades on a left-right scale.

(I'm not going to accept modern Democrats' assertion that supporting civil rights is a liberal thing to do, as that's an asinine thing to say.)
Logged
DINGO Joe
dingojoe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,700
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2016, 03:04:44 PM »

Is there any sort of historical information as to how may black people voted in Mississippi in 1952?  10,000?  Maybe not that many.  Voting rights were so restricted in most of the South that it's very hard to tell much about the voting populace.  I mean WV had a smaller population than MS in 1952 but cast 3X as many votes.  Wouldn't surprise me if more blacks voted in WV than MS.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2016, 11:44:30 AM »

(I'm not going to accept modern Democrats' assertion that supporting civil rights is a liberal thing to do, as that's an asinine thing to say.)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.blacksandpresidency.com/herberthoover.php

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2016, 04:49:53 PM »

(I'm not going to accept modern Democrats' assertion that supporting civil rights is a liberal thing to do, as that's an asinine thing to say.)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.blacksandpresidency.com/herberthoover.php

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history

What, on Earth, is your point?  During the exact same time period, there were very liberal Democrats who swept civil rights under the rug (FDR) and very conservative Republicans who openly called for civil rights legislation (Coolidge), which is my point: you can't just put civil rights on a left-right axis.  It crossed party lines and ideological ones, as well.  You have just simply decided through any number of lazy rationalizations that supporting civil rights is "liberal" (I would guess some form of Blacks are liberals now, so liberals - regardless of party - must have been the only ones fighting for them or the comical conclusion that because you are a liberal and you would have supported civil rights that it must be an inherently liberal view).

There were liberals and conservatives who supported and opposed civil rights all throughout the movement's history; to decide supporting or opposing basic civil rights is liberal is PURE conjecture.  Period.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2016, 11:48:55 AM »

(I'm not going to accept modern Democrats' assertion that supporting civil rights is a liberal thing to do, as that's an asinine thing to say.)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.blacksandpresidency.com/herberthoover.php

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history

What, on Earth, is your point?  During the exact same time period, there were very liberal Democrats who swept civil rights under the rug (FDR) and very conservative Republicans who openly called for civil rights legislation (Coolidge), which is my point: you can't just put civil rights on a left-right axis.  It crossed party lines and ideological ones, as well.  You have just simply decided through any number of lazy rationalizations that supporting civil rights is "liberal" (I would guess some form of Blacks are liberals now, so liberals - regardless of party - must have been the only ones fighting for them or the comical conclusion that because you are a liberal and you would have supported civil rights that it must be an inherently liberal view).

There were liberals and conservatives who supported and opposed civil rights all throughout the movement's history; to decide supporting or opposing basic civil rights is liberal is PURE conjecture.  Period.

My point is that, while neither party was particularly interested in expanding civil rights for black Americans between 1876 and 1948, FDR (and Truman, for that matter) were far more responsive to black concerns than any President - Republican or Democrat - had been since the Grant administration. And it was the (Northern) liberal wing of the Democratic Party (including modern liberal icons like Eleanor Roosevelt and later, Hubert Humphrey)  who were pushing them - in spite of the Conservative Coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats in Congress doing their best to block most if not all of the New Deal (which for the Southern Democrats, included - but by no means was limited to - civil rights for black people).

For  information re: modern conservatism's relationship to anti-civil rights white Southerner , read my post in another thread here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=244964.msg5254176#msg5254176

Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2016, 11:55:30 AM »

Also, read up on the "Lily White" faction of the (still small and marginalized) Southern Republicans in the 1920s - the decade in which they were becoming dominant within the region's GOP.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.049 seconds with 11 queries.