Talk Elections

I know Hoover was doomed anyway, but did the Dust Bowl strengthen FDR's landslide more

The Dust Bowl resulted in a lot of out migration from the Great Plains to (mostly) California in the 1930s and 1940s.    Understandably, those without resources would be the people moving--where the wealthier and more influential would remain.

Interestingly, the impact of the Dust Bowl probably strengthened the Republican hand in this region for the long term--similar to what Hurricane Katrina did to Louisiana politically.

The whole big picture hurt Hoover.

The Okies and Arkies that moved to California did, however, become the base of Reagan Democrats in central California.  The GOP lean in places like Bakersfield is the result of the descendents of the Okies and Arkies who brought their Southern heritage with them to California. 

Those people are Republicans, not "Reagan Democrats".

The worst effects of the Dust Bowl were after 1933 (in 1935-1938, to be exact). This might in fact explain Roosevelt decline in the plains states after 1936.

The plains have largely been a Republican stronghold since the Civil War. Roosevelt won the region in 1932 and 1936 because of the Depression, plain and simple. Landon did well in Kansas (45% of the vote) as that was his home state.

That along with the region from the plains to the midwest having a lot of german americans who swung towards Wilkie and stayed with the GOP. (Although im in the opinion that these german american voters would had swung back to the GOP and Wilkie only accelerated it). Its interesting how despite articles saying millions of people moved from the plains to other regions. In fact electoral participation numbers wise in the plains state actually went up. My guess is that a lot of the people affected didnt care much about elections in general and the population that stayed was really buoyed by Wilkie, along with a lot of the post-dust bowl migration being overstated.

The first wave of depeopling of the Great Plains, particularly the Dakotas, happened in response to the Dust Bowl and the structural drought that was happening in the 1930s and 1940s. The second happened after the farm crisis in the 1980s.

For instance, North Dakota had more residents in 1930 than it did in 2010.

The history of that area from the late 19th century through the depression is a testament to the folly of man and the now-discredited scientific theory of the time that if you plant a bunch of crops in an area, that will cause weather patterns to "adjust" in response so that rain will increase to the necessary amounts for agriculture.

Most certainly it did. FDR’s sweep of the counties west of the Mississippi was quite remarkable in 1932, especially given that apart from “Solid South” Louisiana and Arkansas Al Smith did not win a single state in the region in 1928. He won the following counties that have voted for no other Democrat for President:

• Cass, IA
• Page, IA
• Chautauqua, KS
• Major, OK (by 65—35)
• Campbell, SD
• Hutchinson, SD (by 69—29; though this county backed La Follette in 1924 and voted more D than the nation in 1928 and 1972)
• Sully, SD
• Turner, SD

FDR in 1932 also:

• won Lyon County, Iowa by 67—31
• won Kendall County, Texas (a traditionally GOP Texas German County) by 73—23
• won the state of North Dakota by 70—28 (though it voted more D than the nation in 1928 due to being heavily Catholic)
• won the state of Nebraska by 63—35

All these are extraordinary given present voting patterns, and even given voting patterns before 1932. Major County voted 80 percent for Hoover in 1928, and many western Nebraska counties were equally Republican in 1928 but won easily by FDR in 1932. Lyon County has since the Civil War voted for no Democrat other than FDR in 1932 and 1936.

I think Hoover at best picks up some extra states, maybe enough to put his under 5 percent losses to him, but thats at best