Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Adlai Stevenson lost both times but he won a small handful of Southern states.
Why did he win those particular states? If it has to do with civil rights - this started more after 1956.
Adlai Stevenson lost both times but he won a small handful of Southern states.
Why did he win those particular states? If it has to do with civil rights - this started more after 1956.
Because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and Adlai Stevenson was a Democrat.
After the Compromise of 1877 and the withdrawal of federal troops, the odious Party of Lincoln had no place in the South. In was 1920 before a Republican managed to carry so much as a single state that had been part of the Confederacy (Harding carried Tennessee that year).
Hoover managed to carry five ex-Confederate states in 1928, and carried a majority of the Electoral College votes from the South - but for the five subsequent elections, all Southern States either voted Democratic or (in 1948) split their votes between Democrat and Dixiecrat. Five of the Southern states Stevenson won (AR, MS, AL, GA, SC) had not voted for a single Republican presidential candidate since the end of Reconstruction.
The flip of the South in general to the Republicans wouldn't come until 1964, when Goldwater carried the Deep South states, while LBJ held the remainder (as well as the rest of the nation, save for Goldwater's home state of AZ).
And that's how it's been ever since. Carter won every Southern state but VA in 1976 (but only his home state of GA in 1980), while Clinton won a few in both 1992 and 1996, but still never won a majority of Southen Electoral College votes. Of course, this success was in large part due to them both being Southerners. The other Democratic nominees lost all the Southern states in every election between 1968 and 2004, except for Humphrey squeaking out a plurality win in TX in that year's three-way race. Obama has broken that trend by being a non-Southerner poaching a few large Southern states twice, though his opponents both easily took a majority of Southern votes in the Electoral College.
Adlai Stevenson lost both times but he won a small handful of Southern states.
Why did he win those particular states? If it has to do with civil rights - this started more after 1956.
Most of the South went Democrat no matter what, even for a Northern liberal like Stevenson. Although it is interesting that Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida went Republican in those elections - considering that those states didnt have much of a GOP at the time. Tennessee and Virginia voted for Ike, but those states had Republican districts in Appalachia.
Adlai Stevenson lost both times but he won a small handful of Southern states.
Why did he win those particular states? If it has to do with civil rights - this started more after 1956.
The other replies address this. The central point is that a realignment in American politics had not really occurred in the 1950's. There is a saying called "yellow dog democrat". What that saying stems from is that in virtually every southern state following the Civil War it was impossible for a republican to win election. Such was the feeling in those states against the party that had fought the Civil War and had obtained the abolition of slavery.
Adlai Stevenson benefited from the fact that this realignment had not occurred. Adlai was a classic liberal democrat and it is doubtful that he would have carried a single southern state in either election had the realignment process been further along in 1952. In 1952 though, all most southerners cared about was that Eisenhower was running as a republican.
As it was, the realignment of the parties was in a very early stage. In 1948, Strom Thurmond bolted from the democrat party to run as a "Dixiecrat" because he opposed the platform of the democrat party which called for civil rights legislation and equal rights for African American people. Strom carried the electoral votes of several states. He later joined the republicans and served out his career as a republican senator from South Carolina. Gradually, more southerners would join Thurmond. However, the realignment was not complete until perhaps as late as the 1990's.
Adlai was an interesting candidate. There was probably no candidate nominated by either party up until that time who was as intellectual as Stevenson was. He also had a penchant for humor that few candidates have. His biggest problem was that the democrats had held the White House for the last five consecutive elections and clearly people wanted change. His predecessor, Harry Truman would later be seen as a great President, but in 1952, he was at his low ebb. Some of Truman's approval ratings were in the 20 percent range. The public wanted out of the Korean War and couldn't understand why he had fired General MacArthur. Finally, virtually no person in the country was as lionized by the public as General Eisenhower was in 1952. Ike's role as commander of SHAEF during World War II catapulted him into virtual stardom. When the GOP talked Eisenhower into running for President, the election was basically over.
Adlai was reluctant to run for President because he knew the odds against him were overwhelming. Nevertheless, he did want a forum to speak and to communicate some of his ideas about government. He was also told he had to run as a "duty" to the democrat party.
Ultimately, while the votes in 1952 were overwhelmingly for Eisenhower, Adlai did get about 45% of the vote. This was probably the best anyone running against Eisenhower could have done.
Of course, Ike turned out to be a good President. I often think there were no losers in 1952. The whole country won.
Because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and Adlai Stevenson was a Democrat.
Quite correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
The other Democratic nominees lost all the Southern states in every election between 1968 and 2004, except for Humphrey squeaking out a plurality win in TX in that year's three-way race.
Carter won Texas in 1976.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8
His real mistake was running in 1956. Had he let someone else take the fall that year, he would probably have been elected in 1960.
We will see how well that logic works for Hilary Clinton in 2016. I suspect not very well. And I also suspect that Romney may well be the GOP nominee and next President. I think that the Deep South wasn't ready for a Mormon in 2012 but in 2016 will be, especially after Obama's bumbling incumbency.
The other Democratic nominees lost all the Southern states in every election between 1968 and 2004, except for Humphrey squeaking out a plurality win in TX in that year's three-way race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Carter won Texas in 1976.
I guess that explains why I wrote this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
And that's how it's been ever since. Carter won every Southern state but VA in 1976 (but only his home state of GA in 1980), while Clinton won a few in both 1992 and 1996, but still never won a majority of Southen Electoral College votes. Of course, this success was in large part due to them both being Southerners. The other Democratic nominees lost all the Southern states in every election between 1968 and 2004, except for Humphrey squeaking out a plurality win in TX in that year's three-way race. Obama has broken that trend by being a non-Southerner poaching a few large Southern states twice, though his opponents both easily took a majority of Southern votes in the Electoral College.
I read that John and Bobby Kennedy worked for Stevenson and they didn't like his way of doing things, so they voted for Ike.
Here's a shocker: in 1976, George McGovern (very liberal senator) voted for Ford. Something about Carter's youthful arrogance. Even more bizarre when you think a senator would want his party to stay in the white house.
Mario Cuomo should have run for president in 1988.
Here's a shocker: in 1976, George McGovern (very liberal senator) voted for Ford. Something about Carter's youthful arrogance. Even more bizarre when you think a senator would want his party to stay in the white house.
I suspect McGovern wasn't happy about having his legacy and candidate selection mechanism trashed. I remember that the rules were written one way for the 1972 convention and the re-overhauled for 1976. As is well known, 1972 was a disaster for the Democrats, both at the convention and at the polls.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
