|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2020, 02:16:33 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  Strom Thurmond 1948
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Strom Thurmond 1948  (Read 4129 times)
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 14, 2011, 03:22:30 am »

     In his Presidential campaign, Strom Thurmond won four states: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, & South Carolina. Of these four, Louisiana was by far the closest & even then he won by 17%. In the other three states he received over 70% of the vote. Makes sense, given the status of his campaign as a Southern protest vote, so to speak.

     However, he did really poorly outside of these four states, even in other Southern states. His fifth-best state was Georgia where he lost to Truman by 40%. Georgia would later join the rest of the Deep South in voting for Goldwater in 1964 & the rest of the Deep South (except South Carolina) in voting for George Wallace in 1968. Other states where he received over 10% are Arkansas, Florida, Tennessee, & Virginia. Noticeably absent are North Carolina & Texas, where he received 8.80% & 9.11% respectively.

     As such, my question is what is the cause for this deep split? You could narrow it down by thinking about this: why did he lose Georgia by a landslide margin while winning Alabama, Mississippi, & South Carolina by even bigger margins?
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,119
Liechtenstein


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2011, 07:40:51 am »
« Edited: April 14, 2011, 08:03:39 am by Fanfare for Michael Dukakis »

He had the Democratic ballot line in AL/MS/SC.

EDIT: Hmm, he didn't in SC; I'm assuming that was the favorite son effect, then.
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,885
Cuba


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2011, 07:42:51 am »

The GA Democratic machine stayed with Truman.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2011, 12:12:32 pm »

He had the Democratic ballot line in AL/MS/SC.

EDIT: Hmm, he didn't in SC; I'm assuming that was the favorite son effect, then.

     That's interesting. I knew he did in Alabama, but I wasn't aware that was the case in Mississippi too. Truman ran on the "National Dem." line there, while he wasn't on the ballot at all in Alabama.

The GA Democratic machine stayed with Truman.

     Any explanation for why that was?
Logged
Apocrypha
Dallasfan65
Moderators
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,806


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2011, 06:37:12 pm »

He had the Democratic ballot line in AL/MS/SC.

EDIT: Hmm, he didn't in SC; I'm assuming that was the favorite son effect, then.

     That's interesting. I knew he did in Alabama, but I wasn't aware that was the case in Mississippi too. Truman ran on the "National Dem." line there, while he wasn't on the ballot at all in Alabama.

The GA Democratic machine stayed with Truman.

     Any explanation for why that was?

Richard Russell supported Truman.
Logged
Where is my Freistaat Preußen avatar?
Kalwejt
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 55,739


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2011, 06:44:41 pm »
« Edited: April 14, 2011, 06:46:21 pm by Sam Spade (asexual) »

All depended in which state Thurmond had machine support. Simple, considering that in some he was an official D nominee.

Interestingly, George Wallace was a "Democratic" nominee in Alabama in 1968, while Humphrey, a national party nominee, was forced to ran on "Alabama National Democratic Party" ticket.

Also, in 1964, unpledged electors slot was "Democratic nominee" in Alabama (LBJ wasn't even on the ballot.
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,031
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2011, 07:54:12 pm »

The GA Democratic machine stayed with Truman.

But why? The Democratic party machines did not stay with Truman in other Deep Southern states, evidently. So why did Georgia stay loyal?
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,885
Cuba


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2011, 10:06:00 am »

The GA Democratic machine stayed with Truman.

But why? The Democratic party machines did not stay with Truman in other Deep Southern states, evidently. So why did Georgia stay loyal?

It's already been said: Richard Russell supported Truman.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,809
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2011, 11:46:38 am »

The GA Democratic machine stayed with Truman.

But why? The Democratic party machines did not stay with Truman in other Deep Southern states, evidently. So why did Georgia stay loyal?

It's already been said: Richard Russell supported Truman.
^^^^
This.
A number of Southern Democrats (especially Georgia and Texas Democrats) ultimately showed more loyalty to the national party than to the Dixiecratic cause.  Kind of similar to what happened in 1928 when Mississippi Governor Theodore Bilbo (a proud racist and strong supporter of segregation), despite the overwhelmingly anti-Catholicism of Mississippi, campaigned for Al Smith in Mississippi by spreading rumors that Hoover danced with black women.  The result?  A massive landslide in Mississippi while next door Alabama nearly went Republican.
Logged
Apocrypha
Dallasfan65
Moderators
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,806


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2011, 12:28:08 am »

The GA Democratic machine stayed with Truman.

But why? The Democratic party machines did not stay with Truman in other Deep Southern states, evidently. So why did Georgia stay loyal?

It's already been said: Richard Russell supported Truman.
^^^^
This.
A number of Southern Democrats (especially Georgia and Texas Democrats) ultimately showed more loyalty to the national party than to the Dixiecratic cause.  Kind of similar to what happened in 1928 when Mississippi Governor Theodore Bilbo (a proud racist and strong supporter of segregation), despite the overwhelmingly anti-Catholicism of Mississippi, campaigned for Al Smith in Mississippi by spreading rumors that Hoover danced with black women.  The result?  A massive landslide in Mississippi while next door Alabama nearly went Republican.

LOL. I was thinking about this at work and was going to site 1928 as an example when I got back home.

Anyway, I spent a little over an hour combing through the internet to see if there was some other reason as to why GA voted for Truman - all I could gather was that Richard Russell, something of a kingpin in Georgia politics, supported Truman (albeit for his own political viability, since he expected Dewey to win.) He was also approached by the States' Rights Democratic Party to be their candidate but refused.

It is important to remember that we do not have the internet as a medium of information, so it all boiled down to who the local Democratic committees, newspapers etc supported. Since I am actually involved in local GOP politics (albeit several decades removed from 1948) I can attest to the local parties' influence.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2011, 12:32:11 am »

The GA Democratic machine stayed with Truman.

But why? The Democratic party machines did not stay with Truman in other Deep Southern states, evidently. So why did Georgia stay loyal?

It's already been said: Richard Russell supported Truman.

     But it does not address the important matter: why did he support Truman?
Logged
Apocrypha
Dallasfan65
Moderators
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,806


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2011, 12:41:10 am »

The GA Democratic machine stayed with Truman.

But why? The Democratic party machines did not stay with Truman in other Deep Southern states, evidently. So why did Georgia stay loyal?

It's already been said: Richard Russell supported Truman.

     But it does not address the important matter: why did he support Truman?

I was reading a book that google offered a preview online for the other day.

Richard Russell was confident that Truman would lose in 1948 because of the split between States' Rights and Progressive Parties. Such an election result would have allowed the South to accept their accolades following the 1948 Democratic National Convention: That the Democrats needed the South.

If I may wholesale quote...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2011, 04:42:48 am »

The GA Democratic machine stayed with Truman.

But why? The Democratic party machines did not stay with Truman in other Deep Southern states, evidently. So why did Georgia stay loyal?

It's already been said: Richard Russell supported Truman.

     But it does not address the important matter: why did he support Truman?

I was reading a book that google offered a preview online for the other day.

Richard Russell was confident that Truman would lose in 1948 because of the split between States' Rights and Progressive Parties. Such an election result would have allowed the South to accept their accolades following the 1948 Democratic National Convention: That the Democrats needed the South.

If I may wholesale quote...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Thanks, that is quite illuminating. Russell was quite the strategic thinker, it seems.
Logged
Trends are real, and I f**king hate it
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 51,453
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2011, 05:53:26 am »

The GA Democratic machine stayed with Truman.

But why? The Democratic party machines did not stay with Truman in other Deep Southern states, evidently. So why did Georgia stay loyal?

It's already been said: Richard Russell supported Truman.

     But it does not address the important matter: why did he support Truman?

I was reading a book that google offered a preview online for the other day.

Richard Russell was confident that Truman would lose in 1948 because of the split between States' Rights and Progressive Parties. Such an election result would have allowed the South to accept their accolades following the 1948 Democratic National Convention: That the Democrats needed the South.

If I may wholesale quote...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Thanks, that is quite illuminating. Russell was quite the strategic thinker, it seems.

Yeah, except that Truman actually won and Dixiecrats got permanently wiped out of politics a couple of years later. Grin
Logged
Where is my Freistaat Preußen avatar?
Kalwejt
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 55,739


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2011, 06:40:02 am »

The GA Democratic machine stayed with Truman.

But why? The Democratic party machines did not stay with Truman in other Deep Southern states, evidently. So why did Georgia stay loyal?

It's already been said: Richard Russell supported Truman.

     But it does not address the important matter: why did he support Truman?

I was reading a book that google offered a preview online for the other day.

Richard Russell was confident that Truman would lose in 1948 because of the split between States' Rights and Progressive Parties. Such an election result would have allowed the South to accept their accolades following the 1948 Democratic National Convention: That the Democrats needed the South.

If I may wholesale quote...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Thanks, that is quite illuminating. Russell was quite the strategic thinker, it seems.

Yeah, except that Truman actually won and Dixiecrats got permanently wiped out of politics a couple of years later. Grin

After 1948 Democrats realized they can win without Solid South.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2011, 07:27:45 am »

The GA Democratic machine stayed with Truman.

But why? The Democratic party machines did not stay with Truman in other Deep Southern states, evidently. So why did Georgia stay loyal?

It's already been said: Richard Russell supported Truman.

     But it does not address the important matter: why did he support Truman?
Because he wanted to.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines