Why did the Northeast swing to Johnson in 1964?

[Calthrina950]

Looking at the results of the 1964 election, I am astonished by how strongly Lyndon Johnson did in the Northeast that year. As we know, the Deep South moved to Barry Goldwater because of civil rights. But was that the reason why states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, Republican strongholds at that time, moved to Johnson? Especially the latter two, which had never voted for Franklin Roosevelt. Why did they support Johnson so strongly? And why did he do so well in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (besides the fact that these are Democratic-leaning states)?

[Mr. Smith]

Looking at the results of the 1964 election, I am astonished by how strongly Lyndon Johnson did in the Northeast that year. As we know, the Deep South moved to Barry Goldwater because of civil rights. But was that the reason why states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, Republican strongholds at that time, moved to Johnson? Especially the latter two, which had never voted for Franklin Roosevelt. Why did they support Johnson so strongly? And why did he do so well in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (besides the fact that these are Democratic-leaning states)?

Yes, that's exactly the reason.  As for MA and RI, they were far opposed to reactionary economics and strong benefactors of the New Deal.

The better question is, why were California and Illinois so weak? Did Pierre Salinger create reverse coattails against LBJ? Was homeboy Nixon's campaign somewhat resonant in SoCal?  And why was Utah further left than Idaho [the reason Arizona was farther right than Utah was obviously the native-son effect] that year?

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Looking at the results of the 1964 election, I am astonished by how strongly Lyndon Johnson did in the Northeast that year. As we know, the Deep South moved to Barry Goldwater because of civil rights. But was that the reason why states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, Republican strongholds at that time, moved to Johnson? Especially the latter two, which had never voted for Franklin Roosevelt. Why did they support Johnson so strongly? And why did he do so well in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (besides the fact that these are Democratic-leaning states)?

Yes, that's exactly the reason.  As for MA and RI, they were far opposed to reactionary economics and strong benefactors of the New Deal.

The better question is, why were California and Illinois so weak? Did Pierre Salinger create reverse coattails against LBJ? Was homeboy Nixon's campaign somewhat resonant in SoCal?  And why was Utah further left than Idaho [the reason Arizona was farther right than Utah was obviously the native-son effect] that year?

Goldwater only did a little better in California than he did nationally....he was from a neighboring state,  so there probably wasn't as strong a reaction against "Sunbelt conservatism" as there was in the Northeastern states.

While I can understand why Goldwater didn't appeal to Northeastern states, I can't understand why LBJ did, being seen as a Texas good ole boy. 

[nclib]

Looking at the results of the 1964 election, I am astonished by how strongly Lyndon Johnson did in the Northeast that year. As we know, the Deep South moved to Barry Goldwater because of civil rights. But was that the reason why states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, Republican strongholds at that time, moved to Johnson? Especially the latter two, which had never voted for Franklin Roosevelt. Why did they support Johnson so strongly? And why did he do so well in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (besides the fact that these are Democratic-leaning states)?

Yes, that's exactly the reason.  As for MA and RI, they were far opposed to reactionary economics and strong benefactors of the New Deal.

The better question is, why were California and Illinois so weak? Did Pierre Salinger create reverse coattails against LBJ? Was homeboy Nixon's campaign somewhat resonant in SoCal?  And why was Utah further left than Idaho [the reason Arizona was farther right than Utah was obviously the native-son effect] that year?

Goldwater only did a little better in California than he did nationally....he was from a neighboring state,  so there probably wasn't as strong a reaction against "Sunbelt conservatism" as there was in the Northeastern states.

While I can understand why Goldwater didn't appeal to Northeastern states, I can't understand why LBJ did, being seen as a Texas good ole boy. 

The only Northeastern/Midwestern states to not trend to LBJ were IL and DE. Perhaps there wasn't a large Dem swing in the then hyper-Republican Chicago suburbs.

[Beet]

Goldwater once said he wanted to cut off the entire Eastern seaboard or something.

I mean this was an actual ad-
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/eastern-seabord

It reminds me of a Hillary Clinton ad against Trump. But more creative.

[Calthrina950]

Looking at the results of the 1964 election, I am astonished by how strongly Lyndon Johnson did in the Northeast that year. As we know, the Deep South moved to Barry Goldwater because of civil rights. But was that the reason why states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, Republican strongholds at that time, moved to Johnson? Especially the latter two, which had never voted for Franklin Roosevelt. Why did they support Johnson so strongly? And why did he do so well in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (besides the fact that these are Democratic-leaning states)?

Yes, that's exactly the reason.  As for MA and RI, they were far opposed to reactionary economics and strong benefactors of the New Deal.

The better question is, why were California and Illinois so weak? Did Pierre Salinger create reverse coattails against LBJ? Was homeboy Nixon's campaign somewhat resonant in SoCal?  And why was Utah further left than Idaho [the reason Arizona was farther right than Utah was obviously the native-son effect] that year?

I do find that interesting. Idaho was Johnson's closest win, while he won Utah by nearly ten percentage points. Why were Mormons turned off by Goldwater, considering Arizona is Utah's neighbor also?

[Mr. Smith]

Looking at the results of the 1964 election, I am astonished by how strongly Lyndon Johnson did in the Northeast that year. As we know, the Deep South moved to Barry Goldwater because of civil rights. But was that the reason why states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, Republican strongholds at that time, moved to Johnson? Especially the latter two, which had never voted for Franklin Roosevelt. Why did they support Johnson so strongly? And why did he do so well in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (besides the fact that these are Democratic-leaning states)?

Yes, that's exactly the reason.  As for MA and RI, they were far opposed to reactionary economics and strong benefactors of the New Deal.

The better question is, why were California and Illinois so weak? Did Pierre Salinger create reverse coattails against LBJ? Was homeboy Nixon's campaign somewhat resonant in SoCal?  And why was Utah further left than Idaho [the reason Arizona was farther right than Utah was obviously the native-son effect] that year?

I do find that interesting. Idaho was Johnson's closest win, while he won Utah by nearly ten percentage points. Why were Mormons turned off by Goldwater, considering Arizona is Utah's neighbor also?

Arizona had the native-son effect, and even then was the narrowest loss.

But this is the first election since then that Utah's been more Democratic than Idaho.

[TDAS04]

Most Northeastern WASPs probably voted for Nixon in 1960, but Goldwater scared them in 1964.

[Calthrina950]

Looking at the results of the 1964 election, I am astonished by how strongly Lyndon Johnson did in the Northeast that year. As we know, the Deep South moved to Barry Goldwater because of civil rights. But was that the reason why states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, Republican strongholds at that time, moved to Johnson? Especially the latter two, which had never voted for Franklin Roosevelt. Why did they support Johnson so strongly? And why did he do so well in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (besides the fact that these are Democratic-leaning states)?

Yes, that's exactly the reason.  As for MA and RI, they were far opposed to reactionary economics and strong benefactors of the New Deal.

The better question is, why were California and Illinois so weak? Did Pierre Salinger create reverse coattails against LBJ? Was homeboy Nixon's campaign somewhat resonant in SoCal?  And why was Utah further left than Idaho [the reason Arizona was farther right than Utah was obviously the native-son effect] that year?

I do find that interesting. Idaho was Johnson's closest win, while he won Utah by nearly ten percentage points. Why were Mormons turned off by Goldwater, considering Arizona is Utah's neighbor also?

Arizona had the native-son effect, and even then was the narrowest loss.

But this is the first election since then that Utah's been more Democratic than Idaho.

But why Mormons? Why did they swing to Johnson?

[Lincoln Republican]

These areas, although not overwhelmed by Johnson, were even more underwhelmed by Goldwater.

Goldwater scared a lot of people, and had limited appeal.

[mianfei]

And why was Utah further left than Idaho [the reason Arizona was farther right than Utah was obviously the native-son effect] that year?

I’m not sure – it’s plausible but very uncertain that many Mormons were suspicious of Goldwater’s wife Peggy’s association with Planned Parenthood and did not desire a foundress of Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona as First Lady.

It’s also possible and more likely that Utah residents feared Goldwater would privatize Utah’s water infrastructure and potentially increase cost, something less critical with the more reliable runoff of the Columbia Basin. The 1960 to 1964 Utah swings by county do suggest this had some impact in southern Utah counties that even then were normally 70 percent Republican – especially as Goldwater might have been better known personally there than further north – but most of those counties were too small for even a 14 percent swing to have much statewide effect.

[Kantakouzenos]

Looking at the results of the 1964 election, I am astonished by how strongly Lyndon Johnson did in the Northeast that year. As we know, the Deep South moved to Barry Goldwater because of civil rights. But was that the reason why states like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, Republican strongholds at that time, moved to Johnson? Especially the latter two, which had never voted for Franklin Roosevelt. Why did they support Johnson so strongly? And why did he do so well in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (besides the fact that these are Democratic-leaning states)?

Yes, that's exactly the reason.  As for MA and RI, they were far opposed to reactionary economics and strong benefactors of the New Deal.

The better question is, why were California and Illinois so weak? Did Pierre Salinger create reverse coattails against LBJ? Was homeboy Nixon's campaign somewhat resonant in SoCal?  And why was Utah further left than Idaho [the reason Arizona was farther right than Utah was obviously the native-son effect] that year?

I do find that interesting. Idaho was Johnson's closest win, while he won Utah by nearly ten percentage points. Why were Mormons turned off by Goldwater, considering Arizona is Utah's neighbor also?

Arizona had the native-son effect, and even then was the narrowest loss.

But this is the first election since then that Utah's been more Democratic than Idaho.

But why Mormons? Why did they swing to Johnson?

Most demographics outside of the south swung to Johnson (not necessarily trended though).  It's hard to tell if Mormons trended towards Johnson just by looking at the maps, but they definitely swung towards him.  If I would've to guess why, it would seem that first Mormons were benefactors of the new deal.  In the elections running form 1932-1948, Utah was not just a Democrat state, it was a safe Democrat state, voting significantly more Democratic than the nation as a whole.  I can't really say why or how they benefitted from the New Deal, but they certainly liked Democrats enough to keep voting for them.  Barry Goldwater wanted to undo the New Deal in it's entirety, so that could have been the cause.

As for race issues... although the church and by extent it's members were not the most racially progressive, outside of church I don't think many members were in favor of public segregation so Goldwater couldn't rely on their votes when it came to that issue.

Also, Goldwater could have given a speech that made mormons uneasy.  He gave a lot of speeches that were bad fits for where he was campaigning.  To give an examples, he gave a speech about getting rid of social security in St. Petersburg, then a retirement community.