Louisiana, 1956

[Schmitz in 1972]

Is there any explanation for this state's out-of-nowhere switch from Stevenson to Eisenhower between the 1952 and 1956 elections?

Before 1956, Louisiana had never voted Republican, and in 1952 went for Stevenson by a margin similar to next door Arkansas. Four years later, as the margins in nearby Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas stay fairly constant, Louisiana has this ridiculous swing of more than ten points to Eisenhower. I'm at a loss to come up with a reason that wouldn't also substantially affect the vote in Louisiana's neighbors.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

It only went to Adlai by 5% in 1952, and Ike only got 53% in 1956; there was an Unpledged ticket that got 7% of the vote, messing up the %Margin.

[Rob]

Oil.

[Schmitz in 1972]

I don't think that really explains it Ben

1952 (E: 55% S: 44%)
Arkansas
S: 56%
E: 44%

Louisiana
S: 53%
E: 47%

1956 (E: 57% S: 42%)
Arkansas
S: 52%
E: 46%

Louisiana
E: 53%
S: 40%
U: 7%

In 1956, even if you combine Stevenson and the Unpledged ticket, it's still a 12 point swing, which isn't insignificant, being twice as big as the swing in Arkansas, and three times as big as the swing of the nation. Plus, if anything, I would expect the presence of an unpledged slate to take votes away from Eisenhower (compare South Carolina in 1952 and 1956 to see what I mean).

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes, LA did have the highest swing for an Eisenhower state, at 19.6%.  The Dakotas both had swing of that margin to Stevenson, and Connecticut had a swing of 16% to Eisenhower.  I don't know why Louisiana had a swing like that, other than perhaps oil.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The strangest thing is that Louisiana was one of the most democratic states in 1960...

[Landslide Lyndon]

The strangest thing is that Louisiana was one of the most democratic states in 1960...

Not really. Kennedy's Catholicism was an asset there.

[Beet]

Louisiana 1952 is actually more interesting from the perspective of absolute Republican vote share.
After the end of Reconstruction in 1876, the GOP's highest vote share was 43% in 1884, this declined steadily to 26% in 1888 and in each election thereafter to 10% in 1904. From 1904 to 1948, the GOP　only exceeded 30% of the vote once, winning 30% in the record 1920 Republican landslide. From 1928 to 1948 the Republican vote share was, respectively, 24%, 7%, 11%, 14%, 19%, and 17%. The total vote in Louisiana increased gradually from 215,000 to 416,000, a 201,000 vote increase over 20 years. The Republican absolute vote in these years was 51,000, 19,000, 37,000, 52,000, 68,000, and 73,000, respectively.

In 1952, the GOP vote share jumped from 17% in 1948 to 47%, and the absolute vote jumped from 73,000 to 307,000.

In 1956, the GOP vote share jumped from 47% to 53%, and the absolute vote jumped from 307,000 to 330,000.

It was not until 1972 that this number was doubled again to 686,000 for Richard Nixon.

Clearly, 1952 was the more important year for the GOP's breakthrough in Louisiana. That year, the Louisiana GOP practically emerged out of nowhere, with over 230,000 first time voters (representing more than a third of the state's total electorate) to the polls and all of them voted Republican. But the significance of the breakthrough was obscured by the general Eisenhower landslide.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To further my point, the following depict the total Republican vote for selected southern states from 1924 to 1968:



To get a clearer picture here it is again excluding massive Texas:



The above result is quite striking. First it shows that 1952 was the breakthrough year when the solid south finally cracked. Second, since most of these states went to Stevenson nonetheless, it suggests that this was no the result of mass defections but an influx of new voters. Third, it clearly shows where the Goldwater effect was significant (GA, LA, AL, SC, MS) and where it was not (AR, NC, VA, TN, TX). But it also shows how the Goldwater effect was ephemeral and based on people who would become Wallace voters in 1968.

The Eisenhower effect, unlike the Goldwater effect, was not ephmeral. It was not based on those who would become Wallace voters in 1968, it was based on those who would become Nixon voters in 1968. It was dramatic. It happened across every southern state, deep south or border south. This was the true Republican south (as opposed to the Dixiecrat south) being born.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Very good analysis. Certainly 1952 election was a great realignment for the South, and the beginning of the end of democratic domination here. However, 1964 also remains an important election : don't forget that Goldwater voters that, as you said, voted for Wallace, voted again for Nixon in 1972. See PV percentages in Alabama, Mississipi and Georgia, Nixon received a colossal support.

[RI]

I would also like to note that the Eisenhower effect of 1952 was aided by Thurmond's run in 1948. Thurmond won 49% of Louisiana in 1948 as a third party candidate, dealigning these voters from the Democrats. Many (admittedly not all) of the same areas that were strong for Eisenhower in 1952 were strong for Thurmond in 1948.

[Rob]

I would also like to note that the Eisenhower effect of 1952 was aided by Thurmond's run in 1948. Thurmond won 49% of Louisiana in 1948 as a third party candidate, dealigning these voters from the Democrats. Many (admittedly not all) of the same areas that were strong for Eisenhower in 1952 were strong for Thurmond in 1948.

Yeah. In the Deep South, Eisenhower's big breakthroughs were in affluent cities and suburbs, and in some of the most committedly racist (rural) Black Belt areas.