1936 if FDR aggressively fought for civil rights in his first term

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Say FDR decided to actively push for civil rights for black Americans in his first term, how would his reelection have gone and what would the map have looked like?


To be specific, let's say he desegregates the military, calls for an end to the poll tax and Jim Crow laws, signs an anti-lynching bill into law, and calls for the full enfranchisement and voting rights of all US citizens.

For this, let's say his opponent is still Alf Landon and all other conditions are the same as they were in actual 1936.

[connally68]

Best chance scenario for the President and Vice-President. In 1936. More Democrats would cross-over than in 1972. Very sad but true.

[Corbyn is (no longer) the leader of the Labour Party]

Best chance scenario for the President and Vice-President. In 1936. More Democrats would cross-over than in 1972. Very sad but true.

The south would NOT vote for a republican

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Best chance scenario for the President and Vice-President. In 1936. More Democrats would cross-over than in 1972. Very sad but true.

Why would this cause FDR to do so well in the Northeast? are you assuming Vermont and Maine were only so Republican because voters there believed the GOP was more supportive of civil rights?

[connally68]

You know what  this site!!! Im never going it on it again!!!  all of you!!!

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

You know what  this site!!! Im never going it on it again!!!  all of you!!!

lol what

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

A likely bad guess:

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

FDR had to fight poverty through ending the depression first, and then turn to civil rights. Ironically, the Harlen Crt, was the first Crt to outlaw a ban on marriages between whites and blacks.  These members were appointed by FDR.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Had FDR actually done this, he would quite possibly not have been the Democratic nominee.  The Democratic Party's rules called for 2/3 of all delegates to ratify the Democratic nominee.  The South would not have repealed this rule had FDR done these things in his first term.

[NYSforKennedy2024]

Had FDR actually done this, he would quite possibly not have been the Democratic nominee.  The Democratic Party's rules called for 2/3 of all delegates to ratify the Democratic nominee.  The South would not have repealed this rule had FDR done these things in his first term.

[Alben Barkley]

You might have seen a 1948 style walk-out and, like then, a few Deep South states might have voted for Dixiecrat electors. They started trying that by 1944 anyway. But the upper South and the rest of the country would still vote FDR. And that’s the worst case scenario for him probably. The South sure wasn’t ready to vote for a Republican, certainly not Alf Landon. And FDR was too damn popular for too many other reasons (including among black voters!) that even the deep-seated racism in the South couldn’t destroy him completely there, let alone anywhere else. (No idea why these maps have some of the West and Northeast flip over this.)

It also depends on what you mean by “aggressively push for Civil Rights.” A 1964 style bill is a long way from integrating the military or federal anti-lynching legislation. The latter might have disgruntled some Southerners and cut his margins a little, but he would still probably win the region. The former would be more likely to lead to a third party split.