Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 19, 2018, 03:46:19 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  Why did Truman so well in Texas?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Why did Truman so well in Texas?  (Read 692 times)
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,777
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 04, 2018, 09:34:40 am »

I just noted that Texas was Harry Truman's best state in 1948. He got almost 66% of the vote. This is even better than Johnson in the ’64 landslide, who won 63%. What were the reasons that Truman did so well here? That is surprising since there was a Thurmond's candidacy, who only got nine percent of the vote in the Lone Star State while he won 39 electoral votes from the Deep South. I think the margin itself is much more stunning than the fact that he actually carried the state. Worth mentioning is also that JFK in 1960 just barely carried the state, although he received roughly the same PV and EVs nationally and had a Texan running mate.

Perhaps Dewey, a moderate east coast dude, was just a horrible fit for the state and Truman appealed to farmers and rural voters?
Logged

United Arab Emirates Immigrant, naturalized US citizen, resident of wonderful California, devoted liberal Democrat. Any questions?

Endorsements:
- President: Kamala Harris
- CA Governor: Gavin Newsom
- CA Lt. Governor: Ed Hernandez
- CA Senate: Kevin de León

Turn congress blue again in 2018! #BlueWave
politicalmasta73
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,258
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2018, 09:41:12 am »

swings were more drastic back then because partisanship was at an all time low, and people rallied around a message of FDR 2.0. This was especially odd though cause NYT predicted this was gonna be a tossup, and in their final prediction siad it would go to Dewey
Logged

My Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

Favorite Republican- John Kasich
Favorite Democrat-Bernie Sanders
Favorite Presidents-LBJ,FDR,JFK
Favorite President who never was-Al Gore

(img)https://howold.co/uploads/person/150/150/harry-teague.jpg(/img)
Hydera
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,303


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2018, 07:15:20 pm »

Texas was only 14% African american which meant White Texans didnt swung as much to Thurmond because there wasnt a high black population to cause that defection of Dixiecrats.

A more interesting question is how North Carolina and Georgia avoided the huge shift to Thurmond considering Thurmond's home state was between these two states and they both had high african american populations as a percentage of the demographics at a time.
Logged
The Govanah Jake
Jake Jewvinivisk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,338


Political Matrix
E: -3.35, S: -7.65

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2018, 10:00:44 pm »

Texas was only 14% African american which meant White Texans didnt swung as much to Thurmond because there wasnt a high black population to cause that defection of Dixiecrats.

A more interesting question is how North Carolina and Georgia avoided the huge shift to Thurmond considering Thurmond's home state was between these two states and they both had high african american populations as a percentage of the demographics at a time.

For Georgia its because the Democratic state party backed Truman. I'm pretty sure it's the same reason for North Carolina. You see in the states Thurmond won he was the nominee of the Democratic Party in the state.
Logged

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=18844.1250

2020 Democratic Primary - Sherrod Brown, Tulsi Gabbard, Jeff Merkley, Tammy Baldwin, and Bernie Sanders.

What if Henry Wallace remained on the ticket?

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=287468.0
mianfei
Full Member
***
Posts: 134
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2018, 09:17:55 am »

Texas was only 14% African american which meant White Texans didnt swung as much to Thurmond because there wasnt a high black population to cause that defection of Dixiecrats.

A more interesting question is how North Carolina and Georgia avoided the huge shift to Thurmond considering Thurmond's home state was between these two states and they both had high African American populations as a percentage of the demographics at a time.
North Carolina was because there was a large population of Mountain Republicans in the west descended from communities that opposed secession, so that having the state party back Thurmond would have most likely handed the electoral votes to Dewey. Georgia was because the “Three Governors Crisis” led Hermann Talmadge to fear a challenge in the concurrent gubernatorial race if he backed Thurmond.

in Texas, as others have pointed out, there was not the Republican threat found in North Carolina (or in Tennessee, Oklahoma, or Virginia) but there were relatively fewer Negroes and consequently more concern over economic issues – which even among an electorate limited by poll taxes to a quarter of those eligible favoured Truman over Thurmond very strongly.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,792
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2018, 02:38:46 pm »

Lots of blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics, not to mention it was still a solid D state.
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of
her citizens cannot cure.
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,745
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2018, 04:37:08 pm »

Lots of blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics, not to mention it was still a solid D state.
Lol what?
I'm quite sure the electorate in Texas in 1948 was overwhelmingly white, given the voter suppression and poll tax.
Logged
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,259
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2018, 06:52:05 pm »

Truman must have been a good fit for the region, as his 5 best states were in order TX, OK, AR, GA, and MO, 4 of which are contiguous.

Has TX been either the most Dem or the most GOP state in any other election?
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,792
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2018, 03:09:27 pm »

Lots of blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics, not to mention it was still a solid D state.
Lol what?
I'm quite sure the electorate in Texas in 1948 was overwhelmingly white, given the voter suppression and poll tax.
True, but the second part of my statement stands.
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of
her citizens cannot cure.
AMB1996
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 945


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2018, 08:06:16 pm »

Truman must have been a good fit for the region, as his 5 best states were in order TX, OK, AR, GA, and MO, 4 of which are contiguous.

Has TX been either the most Dem or the most GOP state in any other election?

Yes, Texas was the most Democratic state five times in its first four decades, depending on what measure you use and assuming you exclude South Carolina.

Texas was the most Democratic state in the Union in 1848 and 1852, the first two elections after annexation.

It was the second-most Democratic in 1856 after Arkansas.

In 1860, it was again the second-strongest state for John Breckenridge after Arkansas by margin (owing to the lack of a third candidate in Texas), but was the strongest in raw percentage (75%).

After regaining the vote in 1872, Texas was once again the strongest Democratic state in that election.

It was second-most Democratic again in 1876 behind Georgia.

In 1880, it was the most Democratic state by margin but was fourth in raw percentage owing to the relative strength of James Weaver (11%) in Texas.

In 1884, it was second in both raw vote and percentage to South Carolina, which used the popular vote for the first time.

With the candidacy of Benjamin Harrison in 1888, Texas fell to fifth in margin and sixth in raw percentage, and by 1896, it was close to the median Democratic state. It would bounce between 5th and the median Democratic victory until Truman '48. (Catholic Al Smith notably lost the state in 1928, albeit with a PVI of D+6.9).

I would argue this has less to do with Texas becoming increasingly Republican and more to do with the disenfranchisement of black Republicans throughout the South. In fact, Texas remained about as Democratic as it was in the antebellum period, but other states like Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama became almost unanimously Democratic. Texas had a less substantial black population during Reconstruction, and therefore its vote totals were not as strongly affected by disenfranchisement.

Texas has never been the most Republican state in the Union or even close to it by either of these measures. It did provide Republicans their largest raw popular vote margin from 1992-2016, though it could certainly be passed by Tennessee or Alabama in 2020.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 08:18:49 pm by AMB1996 »Logged

2018 Endorsements:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=282089.msg6089873#msg6089873

I'm not moderate, just disappointed.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines