The Solid South was really bad for Southern presidential politics

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Just some observation.

It's interesting when the South (the former Confederacy) was a stronghold for the Democratic Party, it pretty much ruled out any major Southern politician (AKA Democratic Southern politician, since the GOP barely existed there) as possible candidate for national office.

A very few Southern Democrats actually mounted a serious campaig for presidential or vice presidential nomination since the end of the Reconstruction until the 1930s (Oscar Underwood or Cordell Hull are memorable examples).

From 1864 to 1964 (100 years no less) no representative of the former Confederacy was nominated for President. Also, none of them was nominated for Vice President until 1928 (Joseph Taylor Robinson).

Well, the Democrats, during that era, didn't need a Southerner on the ticket, because the South was called "Solid" for a good reason. Also, a Southern candidate was not very appealing outside of the region.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Your figure is right, but it needs an asterik:

Woodrow Wilson was born in Virginia,  raised in the Confederacy, and concidered himself a Southerner, despite running from New Jersey.

Harry Truman lived in a battleground state (Missouri) and his family sided with the Confederacy.

[Miles]

Good analysis, though I firmly believe Huey Long would have been President if he'd lived past 1935.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Good analysis, though I firmly believe Huey Long would have been President if he'd lived past 1935.

Which is pretty sad.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Your figure is right, but it needs an asterik:

Woodrow Wilson was born in Virginia,  raised in the Confederacy, and concidered himself a Southerner, despite running from New Jersey.

Yes, but I was talking about home states, not birth states. He had his political base in New Jersey, where he lived for a quite long time. I can't see Governor Wilson of Virginia going to the White House.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By this definition you can also include states like Kentucky, Delaware or even Maryland. I'm focusing on the former Confederacy.

[politicus]

Your figure is right, but it needs an asterik:

Woodrow Wilson was born in Virginia,  raised in the Confederacy, and concidered himself a Southerner, despite running from New Jersey.

Yes, but I was talking about home states, not birth states. He had his political base in New Jersey, where he lived for a quite long time. I can't see Governor Wilson of Virginia going to the White House.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By this definition you can also include states like Kentucky, Delaware or even Maryland. I'm focusing on the former Confederacy.

Which is an analytical mistake, the cultural South is a wider region and more relevant.
Ranking of "Southerness" for the border states.

1. Missouri
2. Kentucky
3. Oklahoma
4. Maryland
5. Delaware

What makes you think Wilson couldnt have won based in Virginia? He was perceived as a Southerner during the campaign. Being from NJ didnt change that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What I've always found more interesting are the circumstances under which New Jersey elected somebody who was widely perceived as a Southerner in the first place.

[ag]

It's not merely that the South was Solid. It's also that the South was simply not strong enough within the Democratic coalition to get the nomination and the South itself was too different from the rest of the country to build a proper coalition within the Democratic party needed to do this.

It was conventional wisdom back before the 1960s that a Southern "regional" candidate had no chance at a Democratic convention, which by sheer force of demographics would be dominated by non-Southern delegates, including many representing urban, leftist and minority constituencies within the party. And the very qualities and political views that made Southern politicians sufficiently  prominent in their home states defined them as, at best, regional Southern candidates.

There is a wonderful discussion of this in the 3rd volume of the LBJ biography by Caro (I presume, even more is there in the 4th volume, but I haven't yet read that one). LBJ had to really find a very fine ballance between not alienating his own Texan electorate, maintaining support among the other Southern politicians, and getting any support outside of the South.

Ending segregation and enfranchising Southern blacks made it possible for a Southern politician to be successful in his home state without being a fire-breathing segregationist - which, in turn, made them fair presidential material. Emergence of GOP to take the more right-wing electorate in the South also moved the median of the Dem electorate in the South closer to that of the rest of the party. Note, that the 4 successful Southern Dem nominees (LBJ in 1964, Carter, Clinton and Gore) were running from fairly liberal positions on matters such as race - there was no way such positions could have been sustained by successful Southern politicians before the 1960s (Gore Sr. being a partial exception - but then TN is not fully Southern in any case). The Republican Bushes, on the other hand, are barely "Southern" culturally.

[ag]

What makes you think Wilson couldnt have won based in Virginia? He was perceived as a Southerner during the campaign. Being from NJ didnt change that.

It's not where he was from: it's where he had become prominent in politics. Wilson would not have been a likely successful politician in Virginia. Being a governor of NJ did not have as a pre-requisite staking out particularly fire-breating positions on race, religion, segregation, etc.  Matters of importance for the South were never too politically important for himself.

Same, BTW, holds for Truman. That family WAS culturally fairly Southern. But a Senator from Missouri didn't need to pledge to fight for segregation till his last breath.

[Frodo]

Is it easier for a southern white Democrat than a southern white Republican to win their respective party's nomination? 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Is it easier for a southern white Democrat than a southern white Republican to win their respective party's nomination? 

Since 1968, 2 white Southern Democrats have been nominated for President, as have 2 Republicans.  So far, it seems split.

[All Along The Watchtower]

It's not merely that the South was Solid. It's also that the South was simply not strong enough within the Democratic coalition to get the nomination and the South itself was too different from the rest of the country to build a proper coalition within the Democratic party needed to do this.

It was conventional wisdom back before the 1960s that a Southern "regional" candidate had no chance at a Democratic convention, which by sheer force of demographics would be dominated by non-Southern delegates, including many representing urban, leftist and minority constituencies within the party. And the very qualities and political views that made Southern politicians sufficiently  prominent in their home states defined them as, at best, regional Southern candidates.

There is a wonderful discussion of this in the 3rd volume of the LBJ biography by Caro (I presume, even more is there in the 4th volume, but I haven't yet read that one). LBJ had to really find a very fine ballance between not alienating his own Texan electorate, maintaining support among the other Southern politicians, and getting any support outside of the South.

Ending segregation and enfranchising Southern blacks made it possible for a Southern politician to be successful in his home state without being a fire-breathing segregationist - which, in turn, made them fair presidential material. Emergence of GOP to take the more right-wing electorate in the South also moved the median of the Dem electorate in the South closer to that of the rest of the party. Note, that the 4 successful Southern Dem nominees (LBJ in 1964, Carter, Clinton and Gore) were running from fairly liberal positions on matters such as race - there was no way such positions could have been sustained by successful Southern politicians before the 1960s (Gore Sr. being a partial exception - but then TN is not fully Southern in any case). The Republican Bushes, on the other hand, are barely "Southern" culturally.

Well Texas is so overrun by transplants these days (many if not most of whom are quite conservative) that it's not too surprising that the Bushes would still have strong Southern appeal.

[Mikestone8]

What makes you think Wilson couldnt have won based in Virginia? He was perceived as a Southerner during the campaign. Being from NJ didnt change that.

He would have had to spend  fighting Underwood for southern support, and would probably have been enough weaker in the north (having been President of Princeton and Governor of NJ gave him a broader appeal) for Champ Clark to win the nomination.

Had he been nominated, it probably wouldn't have mattered in November. He would get the core Democratic vote, which in 1912 is all he would have needed.

[Mechaman]

What makes you think Wilson couldnt have won based in Virginia? He was perceived as a Southerner during the campaign. Being from NJ didnt change that.

He would have had to spend  fighting Underwood for southern support, and would probably have been enough weaker in the north (having been President of Princeton and Governor of NJ gave him a broader appeal) for Champ Clark to win the nomination.

Had he been nominated, it probably wouldn't have mattered in November. He would get the core Democratic vote, which in 1912 is all he would have needed.

Emphasis:

[Mikestone8]

Emphasis:

Not sure I uinderstand what the map signifies.

If it's supposed to be a situation where the Republicans managed to stay united in 1912, then it can't happen without massive changes well before Wilson becomes a candidate. If the fact of his running from Virginia rather than NJ  has not changed anything on the Republican side (and there's no obvious reason why it should have) the electoral map of 1912 won't look anything like that, and in fact probably won't differ much from OTL's, save that one or two New England States might go to Taft instead of Wilson. 

[Mechaman]

Emphasis:

Not sure I uinderstand what the map signifies.

If it's supposed to be a situation where the Republicans managed to stay united in 1912, then it can't happen without massive changes well before Wilson becomes a candidate. If the fact of his running from Virginia rather than NJ  has not changed anything on the Republican side (and there's no obvious reason why it should have) the electoral map of 1912 won't look anything like that, and in fact probably won't differ much from OTL's, save that one or two New England States might go to Taft instead of Wilson.  

Sorry, should've clarified earlier.

This was a map of the election of Wilson vs. every possible Taft/Roosevelt vote.  And yes, I know the map would look different from this, as Wilson would have to change his campaign style.

I was agreeing with you about his campaign in 1912.  He only needed to appeal to the Democratic base.  If it weren't for Roosevelt running he would've had to run a bit more of a wide appeal race (abelt with some help from Bryan).  That is what the map was emphasizing.

Whether or not Wilson would've won Maryland, West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada is beside the point.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

That's only the map if every Roosevelt supporter switches to Taft, which is rather unlikely.

[Mikestone8]

That's only the map if every Roosevelt supporter switches to Taft, which is rather unlikely.

Indeed. For my money the only difference TR made was providing a "home" for Republican Progressives more than half of whom would otherwise have defected to Wilson. He saved them from having to hold their noses and vote for a Democrat. 

It's rather how 1920 might have gone had WJ Bryan decided that Cox was unacceptable for some reason, and launched an independent campaign. He would have collected a lot of votes from people who'd been Democrats in 1916, but who were brassed off after the Wilson years and OTL switched to Harding. In such a situation, the latter's popular vote would have been a lot less than OTL, and might even have been less than the combined Bryan/Cox votes - though of course Harding would still have swept the Electoral College.

[Mechaman]

Emphasis:

Not sure I uinderstand what the map signifies.

If it's supposed to be a situation where the Republicans managed to stay united in 1912, then it can't happen without massive changes well before Wilson becomes a candidate. If the fact of his running from Virginia rather than NJ  has not changed anything on the Republican side (and there's no obvious reason why it should have) the electoral map of 1912 won't look anything like that, and in fact probably won't differ much from OTL's, save that one or two New England States might go to Taft instead of Wilson.  

Sorry, should've clarified earlier.

This was a map of the election minus Roosevelt.  And yes, I know the map would look different from this, as Wilson would have to change his campaign style.

I was agreeing with you about his campaign in 1912.  He only needed to appeal to the Democratic base.  If it weren't for Roosevelt running he would've had to run a bit more of a wide appeal race (abelt with some help from Bryan).  That is what the map was emphasizing.

Whether or not Wilson would've won Maryland, West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada is beside the point.

I knew this map would be problematic and a bunch of detail obsessed posters would go apesh*t over the fact that I was too mathematical enough and didn't put "what if" thinkery into it.

LOok, again at the bolded.  I do acknowledge, for the second time, that the map would look different.  I do.  I've said that multiple times already.

The fact that Wilson's pv was a little over 40% should be an indication of how much of his vote were typical Democratic voters.  THAT WAS MY POINT, NOT HEY HEY THIS IS HOW THE ELECTION WOULD LOOK LIKE IF ROOSEVELT DIDN'T RUN!

This map shows the states where Wilson beat both Roosevelt and Taft COMBINED.  In other words, how much the situation of 1912 benefitted him.

This isn't by any means a "what-if" map, but rather a statement of the Democratic base circa 1912.

I've done hypotheticals for 1912 ALL THE FREAKING TIME and I have a good idea of how it would turn out.  THIS ISN'T ONE OF THOSE MAPS!

Okay?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Emphasis:

Not sure I uinderstand what the map signifies.

If it's supposed to be a situation where the Republicans managed to stay united in 1912, then it can't happen without massive changes well before Wilson becomes a candidate. If the fact of his running from Virginia rather than NJ  has not changed anything on the Republican side (and there's no obvious reason why it should have) the electoral map of 1912 won't look anything like that, and in fact probably won't differ much from OTL's, save that one or two New England States might go to Taft instead of Wilson.  

Sorry, should've clarified earlier.

This was a map of the election minus Roosevelt.  And yes, I know the map would look different from this, as Wilson would have to change his campaign style.

I was agreeing with you about his campaign in 1912.  He only needed to appeal to the Democratic base.  If it weren't for Roosevelt running he would've had to run a bit more of a wide appeal race (abelt with some help from Bryan).  That is what the map was emphasizing.

Whether or not Wilson would've won Maryland, West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada is beside the point.

I knew this map would be problematic and a bunch of detail obsessed posters would go apesh*t over the fact that I was too mathematical enough and didn't put "what if" thinkery into it.

LOok, again at the bolded.  I do acknowledge, for the second time, that the map would look different.  I do.  I've said that multiple times already.

The fact that Wilson's pv was a little over 40% should be an indication of how much of his vote were typical Democratic voters.  THAT WAS MY POINT, NOT HEY HEY THIS IS HOW THE ELECTION WOULD LOOK LIKE IF ROOSEVELT DIDN'T RUN!

This map shows the states where Wilson beat both Roosevelt and Taft COMBINED.  In other words, how much the situation of 1912 benefitted him.

This isn't by any means a "what-if" map, but rather a statement of the Democratic base circa 1912.

I've done hypotheticals for 1912 ALL THE FREAKING TIME and I have a good idea of how it would turn out.  THIS ISN'T ONE OF THOSE MAPS!

Okay?

Exactly.  I've tried this before with 1912, and that's what I got.  My ideal electoral map, by the way.
Here is also the electoral vote:
Republican- 379
Democratic- 152
Now, I didn't specify candidates because this is assuming either Roosevelt or Taft got the GOP nomination and the party stayed united behind whichever one it would have been.

[Mikestone8]

/quote]
Exactly.  I've tried this before with 1912, and that's what I got.  My ideal electoral map, by the way.
Here is also the electoral vote:
Republican- 379
Democratic- 152
Now, I didn't specify candidates because this is assuming either Roosevelt or Taft got the GOP nomination and the party stayed united behind whichever one it would have been.

IOW, if 1912 wasn't 1912.

Your first assumption is ok, but you need a PoD not much later than 1909 for the second to be conceivable.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's not certain if those, who voted TR would automatically vote for Taft.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It's not certain if those, who voted TR would automatically vote for Taft.

This is assuming they did.  Much of the reason Wilson won was because Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote.  (Much like Nixon's first election in 1968 owed itself in part to Wallace and Humphrey splitting the Democratic vote.)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It's not certain if those, who voted TR would automatically vote for Taft.

This is assuming they did.  Much of the reason Wilson won was because Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote.  (Much like Nixon's first election in 1968 owed itself in part to Wallace and Humphrey splitting the Democratic vote.)

Well it has to be wondered if many Dixiecrats would vote for Humphrey, "The Happy Warrior". I mean, the Deep South had already ditched the Dems in 1964, and 1960 showed that both Republicans and faithless electors could win Southern states.

[Mikestone8]

It's not certain if those, who voted TR would automatically vote for Taft.

This is assuming they did.  Much of the reason Wilson won was because Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote.  (Much like Nixon's first election in 1968 owed itself in part to Wallace and Humphrey splitting the Democratic vote.)

Well it has to be wondered if many Dixiecrats would vote for Humphrey, "The Happy Warrior". I mean, the Deep South had already ditched the Dems in 1964, and 1960 showed that both Republicans and faithless electors could win Southern states.

Wallace's intervention may even have helped Humphrey.

Had the Wallace vote in Texas gone to Nixon instead, Humphrey could not have carried that state, and of course the five Wallace states would also have gone to Nixon. It is of course conceivable that one or more northern states might have switched the other way (had Wallace voters there chosen Humphrey over Nixon) but by no means certain.