What Election Ended the Solid South?

[??????????]

I'd say 1968.  Every single southern state besides Texas went Republican or for Wallace.

Possibly, but I still think 1952 was when the Solid south started to break up.

[7,052,770]

1948 had the first throes of death, but the "solid" south died in 1964.  If Wallace could've gotten the nomination in '72 he might've been able to bring it back, but it wasn't to be.  The idea of the solid south lingered until the final nail in its coffin in 1980.

[Cubby]

I don't know why more people aren't saying 1928. That was the first time since Reconstruction (50 years) that the GOP won more than 3 Southern states. The question says Solid South, and Maryland and Kentucky are just as Southern as Louisiana and Georgia, according to the Census Bureau which defines our regions.

If you think about it, 1928 was similar to 2004, a liberal Democrat from the Northeast whose ideas were opposed by a vast swath of rural America. It was a "values" election if there ever was one.

1964 only stands out because that was when the loss of Democratic control spread to the deep South states. My point is that 1928 was the first sign that the regional unity was not guranteed. 

[A18]

Your ignorance of American history is showing. Alfred Smith was more conservative than Herbert Hoover by a long shot.

[Cubby]

Your ignorance of American history is showing. Alfred Smith was more conservative than Herbert Hoover by a long shot.

I have a B.A. Minor in History, so I'm not "ignorant"

Al Smith became famously conservative during the first Roosevelt Administration (supposedly b/c they hated each other). When he ran he was still a big city Democrat, who happened to have some new ideas about agriculture and the government, if I remember correctly.

[The Dowager Mod]

"As governor, he became known nationally as a progressive who sought to make government more efficient and more effective in meeting social needs. Under his leadership, New York strengthened laws governing workmen's compensation, women's pensions, and child and women's labor, issues."
Sounds like a Democrat to me.

[A18]

Herbert Hoover did a lot more than that as president.

[A18]

Your ignorance of American history is showing. Alfred Smith was more conservative than Herbert Hoover by a long shot.

I have a B.A. Minor in History, so I'm not "ignorant"

Al Smith became famously conservative during the first Roosevelt Administration (supposedly b/c they hated each other). When he ran he was still a big city Democrat, who happened to have some new ideas about agriculture and the government, if I remember correctly.

Um, Smith supported states' rights and limited federal power. His only "liberal" position was farm prices, and that was probably just to appeal to farmers.

[Cubby]

I don't know why we're off on a tangent about Hoover and Smith. My point was that 1928 was the beginning of the end for the Solid South. Al Smith's ideology has nothing to do with that.

[Max Power]

It wasn't a single election. It was over time. I'd have to say it was the 1910s/1920s when the Democrats began their move to the left and the Republican's to the right. The Populist Party largely effected this when the Democrats technically absorbed them. From this point onward, the Democrats lost steam in the south, and when Truman and Stevenson were our nominees, we were luck to win the south. But largely 1960, as it was Kennedy's perceived liberalism that cost him many southern electoral votes, and the Nixon/Goldwater wing of the party managed to appeal to the neo-segregationism that influenced many states. Nixon himself didn't support this, but he would do anything to become president.

[??????????]

It wasn't a single election. It was over time. I'd have to say it was the 1910s/1920s when the Democrats began their move to the left and the Republican's to the right. The Populist Party largely effected this when the Democrats technically absorbed them. From this point onward, the Democrats lost steam in the south, and when Truman and Stevenson were our nominees, we were luck to win the south. But largely 1960, as it was Kennedy's perceived liberalism that cost him many southern electoral votes, and the Nixon/Goldwater wing of the party managed to appeal to the neo-segregationism that influenced many states. Nixon himself didn't support this, but he would do anything to become president.

Goldwater didn't support segregation.

[Max Power]

It wasn't a single election. It was over time. I'd have to say it was the 1910s/1920s when the Democrats began their move to the left and the Republican's to the right. The Populist Party largely effected this when the Democrats technically absorbed them. From this point onward, the Democrats lost steam in the south, and when Truman and Stevenson were our nominees, we were luck to win the south. But largely 1960, as it was Kennedy's perceived liberalism that cost him many southern electoral votes, and the Nixon/Goldwater wing of the party managed to appeal to the neo-segregationism that influenced many states. Nixon himself didn't support this, but he would do anything to become president.

Goldwater didn't support segregation.

I didn't say that. I said Nixon didn't support it. Neither did Goldwater, but he's not the point STRAWMAN!!!!

[Bono]

"As governor, he became known nationally as a progressive who sought to make government more efficient and more effective in meeting social needs. Under his leadership, New York strengthened laws governing workmen's compensation, women's pensions, and child and women's labor, issues."
Sounds like a Democrat to me.

Coolidge also did a lot of that stuff when he was governor of Massachusets.

[Rob]

"As governor, he became known nationally as a progressive who sought to make government more efficient and more effective in meeting social needs. Under his leadership, New York strengthened laws governing workmen's compensation, women's pensions, and child and women's labor, issues."
Sounds like a Democrat to me.

He supported these reforms only at the state level. He opposed federal welfare programs.

I'd say that 1948 broke the Solid South. The defection of the Dixiecrats allowed the national Democrats to trend further left on civil rights, which eventually drove white southerners into the GOP.

[DanielX]

1920. Yeah, really. Keep in mind that from 1880 to 1916 every former Confederate state voted solid Democrat. in 1920, Tennessee went for Harding.

[jokerman]

1984 more than 1980.  Carter barely lost most Southern states.

[ATFFL]

It wasn't a single election. It was over time. I'd have to say it was the 1910s/1920s when the Democrats began their move to the left and the Republican's to the right. The Populist Party largely effected this when the Democrats technically absorbed them. From this point onward, the Democrats lost steam in the south, and when Truman and Stevenson were our nominees, we were luck to win the south. But largely 1960, as it was Kennedy's perceived liberalism that cost him many southern electoral votes, and the Nixon/Goldwater wing of the party managed to appeal to the neo-segregationism that influenced many states. Nixon himself didn't support this, but he would do anything to become president.

Goldwater didn't support segregation.

I didn't say that. I said Nixon didn't support it. Neither did Goldwater, but he's not the point STRAWMAN!!!!

For it to have been a strawman, States would have had to build an argument around it.  He did no such thing.  All he did is clarify a point that was unclear in your post.

[True Democrat]

The Solid South: 1948
The Democratic South (if even by smaller margins): 1964
The Solid South at the State Level: 1994

[Max Power]

It wasn't a single election. It was over time. I'd have to say it was the 1910s/1920s when the Democrats began their move to the left and the Republican's to the right. The Populist Party largely effected this when the Democrats technically absorbed them. From this point onward, the Democrats lost steam in the south, and when Truman and Stevenson were our nominees, we were luck to win the south. But largely 1960, as it was Kennedy's perceived liberalism that cost him many southern electoral votes, and the Nixon/Goldwater wing of the party managed to appeal to the neo-segregationism that influenced many states. Nixon himself didn't support this, but he would do anything to become president.

Goldwater didn't support segregation.

I didn't say that. I said Nixon didn't support it. Neither did Goldwater, but he's not the point STRAWMAN!!!!

For it to have been a strawman, States would have had to build an argument around it.  He did no such thing.  All he did is clarify a point that was unclear in your post.

Did you ever hear of sarcasm, Treddi?