Why did Pennsylvania and Delaware vote for Hoover in 1932?

[darklordoftech]

When Hoover was so unpopular nationwide?

[Podgy the Bear]

1) For the longest time, much of Delaware has served as SE Pennsylvania extension.  With the exception of 1968, both states tracked identically since 1912--and this continued all the way until 2016.

2) Pennsylvania in 1932 was the Republican version of Texas.   It did vote for Hoover, but the percentage spread from 1928 to 1932 dropped from 32 to 5.

3) Hoover was fairly strong in the Northeast in 1932 (his vote decline in the rest of the country was dramatic), and he did carry much of Philadephia and suburbs--providing the margin  to win Pennsylvania that year.

[morgankingsley]

Pennsylvania was titanium republican back then, not going dem since 1856, of course Hoover would win it although the margin was very showing

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The NE actually trended Republican in 1932:



Massachusetts had the lowest swing of any state.

Its kind of similar to the sunbelt suburbs holding up in 2006/2008 while the GOP collapsed everywhere else.

The base region, especially one based on a demographic turf war, doesn't move much, until the challenged demographic gets swamped by the new one.

[darklordoftech]

The NE actually trended Republican in 1932:



Massachusetts had the lowest swing of any state.

Its kind of similar to the sunbelt suburbs holding up in 2006/2008 while the GOP collapsed everywhere else.

The base region, especially one based on a demographic turf war, doesn't move much, until the challenged demographic gets swamped by the new one.

Is that a map of how each state trended from 1928 to 1932?

[TDAS04]

Interestingly, this was the last presidential election where Philadelphia proper went Republican.  They had quite the Republican machine.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I wonder if the white vote in Philly went for FDR in '32.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The NE actually trended Republican in 1932:



Massachusetts had the lowest swing of any state.

Its kind of similar to the sunbelt suburbs holding up in 2006/2008 while the GOP collapsed everywhere else.

The base region, especially one based on a demographic turf war, doesn't move much, until the challenged demographic gets swamped by the new one.

Is that a map of how each state trended from 1928 to 1932?

Yes, this is the swing map:

[Tartarus Sauce]

Yes, this is the swing map:

Well the first thing that tells you is just how much of the legwork of flipping Massachusetts from Republican to Democrat was done by Al Smith in 1928. But if you go back further than that, Democrats were actually doing decently there in presidential election between 1876-1892. They broke 40% in each election other than 1880, and they only barely fell short there. In 1892, Cleveland managed to keep his loss in the state down to less than a 7 point margin.

Then between 1896-1924, Democrats bomb horribly in each election in the state other than 1916 where Wilson only lost the state by 4 points. Yes, Wilson narrowly won in it 1912, but only because Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote just enough for him to to squeak through, his performance on its own merits wasn't any more impressive than the past several elections had gone in the state for Democrats. Now, sure, 1896-1930 was the fourth party period and Republicans were dominant in the North during this period, but Massachusetts was absolutely awash with Irish immigrants and their descendants at this point, you would think you could at least detect a gradual weakening of the Yankee grip on political power in the state during this period, the shifting tide of the "turf war" as you put it. But the only hint you get of that is 1916, and based on how the two elections that proceeded it went, it would have been very easy to write that election off as a fluke pre-1928. It consistently voted to the right of the national average (except 1904 where it voted almost exactly in line with the national average). Then came 1928 and the Democratic vote totals increase more than 500,000 from what they got in 1924.

How did the Republicans manage to hold such an iron-fisted grip on both the statewide and federal politics of the state up until 1928, given the massive Catholic immigrant and descendant population residing there? Why did it take until 1928 for the dam to finally burst in an overwhelming fashion with very few "leaks" to speak of beforehand?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You could say the same about Hispanics in Texas frankly. What keeps Texas Republican is getting over 70% among whites. I would guess that Republicans were able to get over 70% with Protestants in MA. I would also wager that Republicans were able to not get completely wrecked with the Irish (maybe getting 30% or 35%) and also they probably relied on non-Irish Catholics like Franco-Canadians to prop them up. Consider also that WJB did horrendously with Catholics and he was on the ballot in three elections (emphasize on you mentioning 1904, probably why), Woodrow also decimated the Democrats among ethnics and Catholics by 1920 and Coolidge was on the ballot in 1924 and he had a great deal of cross over appeal. There is a thread with a bunch of maps of Massachusetts (Which probably are all gone now) by Dallasfan that illustrates Coolidge's unique appeal in mill towns and other Catholic areas.

Residual party strength carries its own inertia, hence why Democrats maintain power for so long in places like MS and AL and even GA back in the 1990's. It took Democrats actually breaking through a few times for it to materialize.

[Vittorio]

The NE actually trended Republican in 1932:



Massachusetts had the lowest swing of any state.

Its kind of similar to the sunbelt suburbs holding up in 2006/2008 while the GOP collapsed everywhere else.

The base region, especially one based on a demographic turf war, doesn't move much, until the challenged demographic gets swamped by the new one.

An unrelated question, but what accounts for the Republican swing in Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina between 1928-32? They particularly stand out against the hard Roosevelt swings in the other Southerner States.

[DINGO Joe]

The NE actually trended Republican in 1932:



Massachusetts had the lowest swing of any state.

Its kind of similar to the sunbelt suburbs holding up in 2006/2008 while the GOP collapsed everywhere else.

The base region, especially one based on a demographic turf war, doesn't move much, until the challenged demographic gets swamped by the new one.

An unrelated question, but what accounts for the Republican swing in Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina between 1928-32? They particularly stand out against the hard Roosevelt swings in the other Southerner States.

That's a trend map, not a swing map.  Much of the South wasn't fond of Al Smith (Catholic) being the D standard in 1928.  Of course, much of Louisiana is Catholic, so they didn't swing towards Hoover like much of the South (or rather barely swung).  Why Mississippi didn't swing  so much in 1928 either I don't know. 

[TDAS04]

The NE actually trended Republican in 1932:



Massachusetts had the lowest swing of any state.

Its kind of similar to the sunbelt suburbs holding up in 2006/2008 while the GOP collapsed everywhere else.

The base region, especially one based on a demographic turf war, doesn't move much, until the challenged demographic gets swamped by the new one.

An unrelated question, but what accounts for the Republican swing in Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina between 1928-32? They particularly stand out against the hard Roosevelt swings in the other Southerner States.

That's a trend map, not a swing map.  Much of the South wasn't fond of Al Smith (Catholic) being the D standard in 1928.  Of course, much of Louisiana is Catholic, so they didn't swing towards Hoover like much of the South (or rather barely swung).  Why Mississippi didn't swing  so much in 1928 either I don't know.  

Mississippi and South Carolina were almost monolithically Democratic, so even the Papist won overwhelmingly majorities, and those two states had little room to get more Democratic than they already were.