Did the "FDR" Re-alignment really begin in 1928?

[Beet]

If the New Deal realignment is said to be the Democratic coalition of Dixiecrats, Northern cities, and Western farmers, there are some interesting anomalies that appeared before the New Deal or the Depression.

Massachusetts and Rhode Island

1928 was the first time in state history that Massachusetts had ever voted majority Democratic. It was the first time Rhode Island voted majority Democratic since 1852. (In 1912 Wilson did carry both states, but only with 35-39%) Yet despite Hoover winning a massive 58% landslide and every state outside the deep South, both went for Smith. In the decades since these would become two of the most reliably Democratic states in the nation, supporting Truman, Kennedy, Humphrey, Carter, and Dukakis. The breaking point was not 1932 but 1928. This is all the more interesting since Coolidge had crushed John Davis 62%-25% in Massachusetts and 60%-36% in Rhode Island.

New York. Harding got 65% in New York. Coolidge won it 56% to 29%. Hughes defeated Wilson in 1916 by a comfortable 6 percentage points. Wilson underperformed (though barely) his national average in 1912. It consistently supported McKinley, TR, and Taft. Clearly, in the alignment of Mark Hanna's day, New York was a solid Northern Republican state.

However in 1928, Hoover received 58% of the national vote and won only by 49.8%-47.4% in New York. It was the only state that Hoover won in which he failed to carry a majority. A closer look reveals that Smith won all five of New York's burroughs, all of which were carried by both Hoover and Coolidge.

Kings county, New York, which contains Brooklyn burrough, has gone Democratic in every single presidential election since 1928. In 1924 it had gone Republican, and prior to that it had a 5-3 Republican record. 1928 also marked the first time the Democrat had won an outright majority in the burrough since 1892, something the Democratic candidate has never failed to do since (McGovern got 51%).

In Queens county, Smith got 53%, up from 31% for Davis. In 1932, FDR got 61%.

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania went heavily for Hoover in 1928, and also went for him in 1932. Philadelphia however tells a different story.

1936 539,757 Dem 329,881 GOP
1932 260,276 Dem 331,092 GOP
1928 276,573 Dem 420,320 GOP
1924 54,213 Dem 347,457 GOP
1920 90,151 Dem 307,826 GOP
1916 90,800 Dem 194,163 GOP
1912 66,308 Dem 91,944 GOP
1908 75,310 Dem 185,263 GOP
1904 48,784 Dem 227,709 GOP
1900 58,179 Dem 173,657 GOP
1896 63,323 Dem 176,462 GOP
1892 84,470 Dem 116,685 GOP

We see that the Democratic vote jumped over 400% in Philadelphia in 1928, but actually fell in 1932, and increased just 107% in 1936.

Illinois The Democratic vote in Illinois from 1892-1924 averaged about 500,000-600,000. In 1928 it suddenly jumped to 1.3 million, with the highest percentage since the last "realignment" in 1896. Of these 700,000-800,000 new Democratic votes, about 500,000 came from Cook county. In 1932 FDR's statewide total was about 1.9 million, of which Cook county contributed 200,000 of his increased total.

So my question is, was the "New Deal" realignment really defined by the New Deal? Was there a re-alignment emerging already before the Stock Market crash, and the New Deal merely accelerated this? I believe that to be the case. You can judge for yourself.

[J. J.]

I would say definitely 1930-36.  This might be a "proto-realignment" and I would not that the mid to late 1970's, you had a similar effect.

[PBrunsel]

Your just trying to downplay Hoover's huge win in 1928.

Smith did well in MA and RI because he was a Ctholic and Irish. He was Governor of New York. Illinois voted strongly for him because they favored a candidate who was "Wet" on Prohibition. 

[Beet]

I'm not trying to downplay Hoover's win, I'm trying to make an observation about the nature of the so-called New Deal realignment. We realize that Reagan and Gingrich did not magically create new coalitions entirely in one year, they tapped into long-trending forces that had been building up for some time.

Yet we blindly assume that the New Deal realignment was based on a singular event... while possible, a close inspection of the 1928 returns shows that doesn't appear to  be true. These returns seem to show that the "Northern labor" bloc had already made a historic movement in 1928 in the major Northern cities that was obscured by Hoover's overall win, and that even without the Great Depression, a Dixiecrat-Northern city coalition was already emerging and would have been a force in 1932 no matter what the economic conditions were.

I'm not sure what Dave's polic about posting maps in the members section is, I'll remove these if asked. But these are county returns in New York 1924-36. Notice in particular the five burroughs:

New York in 1924- last election prior to 1928 (lest you feel LaFollette skewed things, in 1920, Harding also won every county)



New York in 1928- before the so-called "new Deal" realignment is commonly thought to have begun



New York in 1936- the end of the so-called "New Deal" realignment

[PBrunsel]

I'm not trying to downplay Hoover's win, I'm trying to make an observation about the nature of the so-called New Deal realignment.

I was kidding about downplaying the Hoover victory Beet.

[Beet]

I'm not trying to downplay Hoover's win, I'm trying to make an observation about the nature of the so-called New Deal realignment.

I was kidding about downplaying the Hoover victory Beet.

Oh ok, sorry :x

[Rob]

Smith definitely began the realignment process. He did well in the cities because he was a Catholic. But he also did fairly well-for a Democrat- in the Republican farm belt. Interestingly, in states like Iowa, Smith did better in rural areas than in the cities.

 Many wheat farmers and ranchers abandoned their GOP loyalties in '28 due to the farm crisis of the period. Smith came within 10 points of carrying North Dakota, which LaFollette had almost carried in 1924. Many progressive Republicans that had voted for LaFollette switched to Smith, and had he been a Protestant, he would have done much better.

So yes, the Democratic realignment was actually begun by Smith, but it took the Depression for the GOP to lose.

[minionofmidas]

If you view the New Deal Coalition as comprising Northeastern Urbanites, Southerners and Rural Westerners (as it did in 32 and 36), then 1928 was different - the Western component is missing. But of course, it was starting to get lost by 1940, as soon as farmers weren't starving anymore...
Of course Smith's Urban scores (I've always heard it told he carried the nation's 12 largest cities, though some of them by small margins - apparently that's not true; according to your data he did not carry Philly) were influenced by Catholicism and Wetness (and so was his weak showing in the West and the Upper South), but then, the New Deal realignment was partly shaped by these issues; these aren't really conflicting claims.

[Beet]

If you view the New Deal Coalition as comprising Northeastern Urbanites, Southerners and Rural Westerners (as it did in 32 and 36), then 1928 was different - the Western component is missing.

See Bob's post... the farm crisis of the 1920s was the precursor to the Depression and was already turning some Western areas away from the GOP.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, though the Kansas-Nebraska-Dakota belt was always one of the weakest areas for FDR. West of that belt (MT, WY, ID, CO, UT, NM, AZ, NV), they remained largely in the Democratic coalition until 1952, when they irrevocably became strongly GOP leaning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, the Catholics had always been one of the biggest components of the New Deal coalition. Which makes Kerry's loss of Catholics all the more nail-in-the-coffin for that. However, Dixiecrats still have big majorities in the MS, LA and AR state legislatures. Its hard to imagine that the process which began in 1948 still has not been completed.

[jaichind]

This is a major theme in Kevin Phillips' Emerging Republican Majority written in 1969.  Phillips claims that the New Deal Realignment has its roots in the 1928 election just like the 1968 realignment has its roots in the 1964 election.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1928 was the first time in state history that Massachusetts had ever voted Democratic, a major party that had been around for 100 years. Rhode Island had not gone Democrat since 1852.

False. See 1912.

[phk]

1912 really skewed things, but would be interesting is if anybody with a paid subscription tell me if Fresno County in California voted more Democrat in 1928 than 1924; precentage-wise.

That was probably a true "New Deal" County as it finnally become GOP when Reagan dismantled whatever he could of the New Deal.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1912 really skewed things, but would be interesting is if anybody with a paid subscription tell me if Fresno County in California voted more Democrat in 1928 than 1924; precentage-wise.

That was probably a true "New Deal" County as it finnally become GOP when Reagan dismantled whatever he could of the New Deal.

You can't really compare 1924 to 1928 because LaFollette skewed things.

Fresno 1924:

Calvin Collidge 44.01%
Robert LaFollette 41.76%
John Davis 12.98%

Fresno 1928:

Herbert Hoover 54.30%
Al Smith 44.32%

[Beet]

1928 was the first time in state history that Massachusetts had ever voted Democratic, a major party that had been around for 100 years. Rhode Island had not gone Democrat since 1852.

False. See 1912.

Oops, my bad.

[phk]

1912 really skewed things, but would be interesting is if anybody with a paid subscription tell me if Fresno County in California voted more Democrat in 1928 than 1924; precentage-wise.

That was probably a true "New Deal" County as it finnally become GOP when Reagan dismantled whatever he could of the New Deal.

You can't really compare 1924 to 1928 because LaFollette skewed things.

Fresno 1924:

Calvin Collidge 44.01%
Robert LaFollette 41.76%
John Davis 12.98%

Fresno 1928:

Herbert Hoover 54.30%
Al Smith 44.32%

How do the 1920 numbers stack up?

Al Smith had a huge boost over Davis,  but I'd wager a lot of the LaFollete people had switched to Davis.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1920 was Harding 55.36%, Cox 36.39%, Debs 5.40%

[Nym90]

If you view the New Deal Coalition as comprising Northeastern Urbanites, Southerners and Rural Westerners (as it did in 32 and 36), then 1928 was different - the Western component is missing. But of course, it was starting to get lost by 1940, as soon as farmers weren't starving anymore...
Of course Smith's Urban scores (I've always heard it told he carried the nation's 12 largest cities, though some of them by small margins - apparently that's not true; according to your data he did not carry Philly) were influenced by Catholicism and Wetness (and so was his weak showing in the West and the Upper South), but then, the New Deal realignment was partly shaped by these issues; these aren't really conflicting claims.

Actually, we only know that Smith lost Philadelphia County. Are there parts of Philadelphia County that are not a part of the City of Philadelphia?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually, we only know that Smith lost Philadelphia County. Are there parts of Philadelphia County that are not a part of the City of Philadelphia?

No (they amalgamated it all in the 1850's IIRC)... but Philly is a pretty divided city (and on so many levels).
Not seen any detailed Philly results for '28 but I would guess that Smith did well in the heavily Catholic areas (South Philly, Northeast Philly) while getting nuked in the heavily Black areas.
Just a guess though.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I dont think so as Smith lost half the southern states(FDR swept them ) , and other the Mass didnt really win that many states in New England.

[Skill and Chance]

I dont think so as Smith lost half the southern states(FDR swept them ) , and other the Mass didnt really win that many states in New England.

This is why I think it is better to categorize the realignments as:

1. 1860-1896

2. 1896-1952

3. 1952-2008

4. 2008-present

The patterns are:

1. Northern working class coalesces against slavery, becomes solidly Republican, North vs. South elections for a generation.

2.  Democrats finally break through with the Northern working class and Western commodity industries (small farmers, mining, logging, etc.).

3. Growth of suburbs eventually leads to a long period of conservative dominance (sometimes in coalition with Southern Democrats), African Americans become solidly Democratic.

4.  Democrats permanently break through in the suburbs, elections become almost entirely rural vs. urban affairs.  Republican rural margins start to match Democratic urban margins.  Left wing ideas enter the mainstream again.

Elections like 1920, 1932, and 1980 should be thought of as the middle of an era of ideological dominance, not the end of it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I dont think so as Smith lost half the southern states(FDR swept them ) , and other the Mass didnt really win that many states in New England.

This is why I think it is better to categorize the realignments as:

1. 1860-1896

2. 1896-1952

3. 1952-2008

4. 2008-present

The patterns are:

1. Northern working class coalesces against slavery, becomes solidly Republican, North vs. South elections for a generation.

2.  Democrats finally break through with the Northern working class and Western commodity industries (small farmers, mining, logging, etc.).

3. Growth of suburbs eventually leads to a long period of conservative dominance (sometimes in coalition with Southern Democrats), African Americans become solidly Democratic.

4.  Democrats permanently break through in the suburbs, elections become almost entirely rural vs. urban affairs.  Republican rural margins start to match Democratic urban margins.  Left wing ideas enter the mainstream again.

Elections like 1920, 1932, and 1980 should be thought of as the middle of an era of ideological dominance, not the end of it.

For number 4 I would say 2000 to present instead of 2008, as 2000 was an election where the urban areas were dominated by gore and rural areas were dominated by bush . Also in 2000 it became apparent that the democrats didn't need rural areas to win an election as if they did slightly better in the suburbs they win that election .

If we are going on your points this is how I would describe them


1860-1912 : With the exception of 1896 these elections were basically North vs south
1912-1960 : democrats start to break in to the republican dominance in the north and start to win over the African American vote , while holding on to the solid south .
1960-2000: With growing suburb populations and the solid south beginning to become republican , this leads to a period of conservative dominance and democrats needing to nominate southerners or centrists to win
2000- Present : Democrats finally are able to win in the suburbs while rural areas and urban areas become solidly partisan.

[RINO Tom]

Again, no party can count on rural voters, and the GOP certainly doesn't; there aren't enough of them.  Have we already forgotten that TRUMP even won the suburban vote and downballot Republicans did even better?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Again, no party can count on rural voters, and the GOP certainly doesn't; there aren't enough of them.  Have we already forgotten that TRUMP even won the suburban vote and downballot Republicans did even better?

I said Dems dominate in  urban areas   , and GOP dominates in rural areas and nether need to do well in the areas they get dominated in as whoever wins suburban voters voters win the election

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What this thread ignored was the impact of generational demographics.


Since birthrates among the immigrant Catholics was higher and also because those children would be naturalized citizens and voters, the Lost and then even more so, the Greatest Generation, were far more ethnically diverse with the city white populations becoming overwhelmingly ethnic white and Catholic. This meant that you would have such massive and large gains in votes from one election to the next and this was evident in 1928 as Smith being a Catholic, meant that he could tap into that vote in a big way for the first time. But nothing compared to the motivational force of the Depression to turn out and vote, and the number of voters ballooned over the next several years.

That is why if I am not mistaken, polling had Landon ahead in MA. When it came to the weath skew in those polls, that meant that an older, Protestant demographic was over represented and one that was far and away out voted on the ground.

[RINO Tom]

What this thread ignored was the impact of generational demographics.


Since birthrates among the immigrant Catholics was higher and also because those children would be naturalized citizens and voters, the Lost and then even more so, the Greatest Generation, were far more ethnically diverse with the city white populations becoming overwhelmingly ethnic white and Catholic. This meant that you would have such massive and large gains in votes from one election to the next and this was evident in 1928 as Smith being a Catholic, meant that he could tap into that vote in a big way for the first time. But nothing compared to the motivational force of the Depression to turn out and vote, and the number of voters ballooned over the next several years.

That is why if I am not mistaken, polling had Landon ahead in MA. When it came to the weath skew in those polls, that meant that an older, Protestant demographic was over represented and one that was far and away out voted on the ground.

Obviously it's not apples to apples, but I vaguely remember reading one time that there were actually a few publications making similar predictions as today at that time: that demographics were eventually going to catch up with the heavily Anglo, heavily Protestant GOP and that they'd eventually need to reach out to ethnic Whites and Catholics, haha.  Kind of funny to look back on considering the current narrative on demographics.