Was Al Smith's strength with Catholics overstated?

[Joe McCarthy Was Right]

He didn't do well in Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, or Cincinnati. Doesn't matter if it was Republican machines that brought Hoover to the top in those places, FDR still outperformed him in those places in 1932 and 1936.

[lfromnj]

I mean it was a realigning election. he was the first democrat EVER to win a majority in MA.

[Intell]

Catholics voted for Smith, every single other group did not.

[Orser67]

1916 was the lone fairly close election between 1901 and 1947, so it's interesting to compare Wilson's 1916 victory with Smith's 1928 defeat.

Even while winning 49% of the vote nationally, Wilson only took one Northeastern state (NH), while Smith, who won 40% nationally, took two Northeastern states (MA and RI). The interesting thing, to me, is that Wilson actually came pretty close to winning MA and RI. So I'm also curious whether Smith was especially strong among Catholics, or if his victories in MA and RI were less about Smith's strength with Catholics and more the result of long-term trends and the Democrats losing by a slightly smaller margin than they had in 1920 and 1924.

[AudmanOut]

He didn't do well in Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, or Cincinnati. Doesn't matter if it was Republican machines that brought Hoover to the top in those places, FDR still outperformed him in those places in 1932 and 1936.

Well there was little thing called the depression then. Also he lost the Protestant vote in a landslide there .
New York City and Boston were more Catholic( and still are!) then those and he won there in a landslide.

[RINO Tom]

He didn't do well in Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, or Cincinnati. Doesn't matter if it was Republican machines that brought Hoover to the top in those places, FDR still outperformed him in those places in 1932 and 1936.

Are we sure Catholics were a >50%, legitimate majority in enough of those counties to carry them for Smith in 1928?

[Joe McCarthy Was Right]

He didn't do well in Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, or Cincinnati. Doesn't matter if it was Republican machines that brought Hoover to the top in those places, FDR still outperformed him in those places in 1932 and 1936.

Are we sure Catholics were a >50%, legitimate majority in enough of those counties to carry them for Smith in 1928?

I can't be 100% confident, but they probably were. 59% of Detroit was foreign born or 2nd generation in 1930, according to this chart. The "Canadians" were probably more Catholic than Protestant because Windsor is heavily Catholic. Maybe a lot of the immigrants were too young or illiterate to vote, but Grover Cleveland was still able to win Wayne County.


If that's what Detroit's demographics looked like, I think Chicago would have even less favorable demographics for Hoover.


Cincinnati was also probably majority Catholic, as there are more Catholics than Protestants in Hamilton County even today according to the Census, and it didn't have the high black population that it does today.

Philadelphia's demographics might have been just favorable enough for Hoover to squeak a victory.

[ag]

But not all of those "foreign-borns" are likely Catholic. Of the minorities mentioned, chances are none of the Russians (3%), Greeks or Finns (another 1% together), and relatively few of the English (4%) or Scottish (2%) were. Even if half the Germans and Yugoslavs and 2/3 of Canadians and 100% of the rest were (and I doubt it is that high), you are not getting 50% of the population. And immigrant turnout might not be as high as that of the more established population.