Presidential election results in Boston-MA

[buritobr]

Wikipedia page of the city of Boston, Massachusetts, has the results of the presidential elections in the city since 1972

Presidential election results
2016
D: 80.6% 221,093  R: 13.9% 38,087
2012
D: 78.8% 200,190  R: 19.3% 48,985
2008
D: 79.0% 185,976  R: 19.4% 45,548
2004
D: 77.3% 160,884  R: 21.4% 44,518
2000
D: 71.7% 132,393  R: 19.7% 36,389
1996
D: 73.8% 125,529  R: 19.6% 33,366
1992
D: 62.4% 114,260  R: 22.9% 41,868
1988
D: 65.2% 122,349  R: 33.2% 62,202
1984
D: 63.4% 131,745  R: 36.2% 75,311
1980
D: 53.3% 95,133    R: 32.9% 58,656
1976
D: 60.4% 115,802  R: 35.3% 67,604
1972
D: 66.2% 139,598  R: 33.3% 70,298
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston

We can highlight that McGovern 1972 was better than Carter 1976 and 1980, Mondale 1984 and Dukakis 1988. Ford 1976 was better than Reagan 1980, but there was Anderson in 1980. Since 1992, only Bush 2004 had >20% in Boston (against John Kerry!) but we have to consider that there were no strong minor candidates in 2004.
There are no results of previous years, but since we know that the last republican to win Suffolk-MA was Coolidge 1924, and that Boston is more D than Suffolk, we can say that Stevenson won in Boston in 1952 and 1956.

[Calthrina950]

Wikipedia page of the city of Boston, Massachusetts, has the results of the presidential elections in the city since 1972

Presidential election results
2016
D: 80.6% 221,093  R: 13.9% 38,087
2012
D: 78.8% 200,190  R: 19.3% 48,985
2008
D: 79.0% 185,976  R: 19.4% 45,548
2004
D: 77.3% 160,884  R: 21.4% 44,518
2000
D: 71.7% 132,393  R: 19.7% 36,389
1996
D: 73.8% 125,529  R: 19.6% 33,366
1992
D: 62.4% 114,260  R: 22.9% 41,868
1988
D: 65.2% 122,349  R: 33.2% 62,202
1984
D: 63.4% 131,745  R: 36.2% 75,311
1980
D: 53.3% 95,133    R: 32.9% 58,656
1976
D: 60.4% 115,802  R: 35.3% 67,604
1972
D: 66.2% 139,598  R: 33.3% 70,298
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston

We can highlight that McGovern 1972 was better than Carter 1976 and 1980, Mondale 1984 and Dukakis 1988. Ford 1976 was better than Reagan 1980, but there was Anderson in 1980. Since 1992, only Bush 2004 had >20% in Boston (against John Kerry!) but we have to consider that there were no strong minor candidates in 2004.
There are no results of previous years, but since we know that the last republican to win Suffolk-MA was Coolidge 1924, and that Boston is more D than Suffolk, we can say that Stevenson won in Boston in 1952 and 1956.

As you yourself highlight, Coolidge is the last Republican to win Suffolk County, so Stevenson definitely would have carried Boston-and Suffolk County was the only county in Massachusetts that he won against Eisenhower in those two years. Harding in 1920 is the last Republican to garner a majority in Suffolk County, and almost certainly the last to do so in Boston itself. And William McKinley won Suffolk County (and Boston) in 1896 against William Jennings Bryan, as noted in Menendez's Atlas of Presidential Elections (but lost it in 1900), and William H. Taft also carried Suffolk County (and probably Boston as well) against Bryan in 1908. Prior to 1896, Boston's results are more ambiguous, since I'm uncertain whether or not Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant-who both won every county in Massachusetts, carried the city. My suspicion is that they did.

[H. Ross Peron]

I guess Eugene McCarthy did decently well in Boston in 1976 given the 4.3% third party vote?

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I guess Eugene McCarthy did decently well in Boston in 1976 given the 4.3% third party vote?

Could you imagine being a life long Democrat and a secular New Englander in 1976? Having to decide to vote for a Southern evangelical hick Democrat.

[Senator Incitatus]

Prior to 1896, Boston's results are more ambiguous, since I'm uncertain whether or not Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant-who both won every county in Massachusetts, carried the city. My suspicion is that they did.

Please keep in mind that Boston was a much smaller city in the mid-20th century, before it annexed Brighton, Charlestown, South Boston, Roxbury, Hyde Park.

Anyway, I have the results:
1820: Federalist electors 10,298 (94.72%)–Monroe 557 (5.12%)
...
1868: Grant 15,546 (55.93%)–Seymour 12,250 (44.07%)
1872: Grant 15,710 (60.10%)–Greeley 10,428 (39.90%)
1876: Tilden 23,690 (54.63%)–Hayes 19,676 (45.37%)
1880: Hancock 27,421 (51.41%)–Garfield 25,550 (47.90%)–Weaver 293 (0.55%)
1884: Cleveland 32,572 (55.80%)–Blaine 20,827 (35.68%)–Butler 3,718 (6.37%)–St. John 1,251 (2.14%)
1888: Cleveland 36,690 (56.25%)–Harrison 27,762 (42.56%)
1892: Cleveland 41,931 (56.00%)–Harrison 31,555 (42.14%)
1896: McKinley 48,156 (58.51%)–Bryan 27,111 (36.67%)–Palmer 3,037 (3.69%)
1900: Bryan 45,122 (53.81%)–McKinley 36,241 (43.22%)–Debs 1,198 (1.43%)
1904: Parker 49032 (54.11%)–Roosevelt 38423 (42.40%)–Debs 2,121 (2.34%)

[Calthrina950]

Prior to 1896, Boston's results are more ambiguous, since I'm uncertain whether or not Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant-who both won every county in Massachusetts, carried the city. My suspicion is that they did.

Please keep in mind that Boston was a much smaller city in the mid-20th century, before it annexed Brighton, Charlestown, South Boston, Roxbury, Hyde Park.

Anyway, I have the results:
1820: Federalist electors 10,298 (94.72%)–Monroe 557 (5.12%)
...
1868: Grant 15,546 (55.93%)–Seymour 12,250 (44.07%)
1872: Grant 15,710 (60.10%)–Greeley 10,428 (39.90%)
1876: Tilden 23,690 (54.63%)–Hayes 19,676 (45.37%)
1880: Hancock 27,421 (51.41%)–Garfield 25,550 (47.90%)–Weaver 293 (0.55%)
1884: Cleveland 32,572 (55.80%)–Blaine 20,827 (35.68%)–Butler 3,718 (6.37%)–St. John 1,251 (2.14%)
1888: Cleveland 36,690 (56.25%)–Harrison 27,762 (42.56%)
1892: Cleveland 41,931 (56.00%)–Harrison 31,555 (42.14%)
1896: McKinley 48,156 (58.51%)–Bryan 27,111 (36.67%)–Palmer 3,037 (3.69%)
1900: Bryan 45,122 (53.81%)–McKinley 36,241 (43.22%)–Debs 1,198 (1.43%)
1904: Parker 49032 (54.11%)–Roosevelt 38423 (42.40%)–Debs 2,121 (2.34%)

I'm aware of this. My comment was a reflection on what I wasn't sure about. And at any rate, your numbers confirm my suspicion-that Grant won Boston in 1868 and 1872. After Grant, McKinley in 1896 was indeed the next Republican to carry it, followed by Taft in 1908. That means it's safe to assume that Lincoln won the city in 1864-and possibly 1860 as well, though you didn't include that. What about Andrew Jackson in 1828 and 1832?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Prior to 1896, Boston's results are more ambiguous, since I'm uncertain whether or not Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant-who both won every county in Massachusetts, carried the city. My suspicion is that they did.

Please keep in mind that Boston was a much smaller city in the mid-20th century, before it annexed Brighton, Charlestown, South Boston, Roxbury, Hyde Park.

Anyway, I have the results:
1820: Federalist electors 10,298 (94.72%)–Monroe 557 (5.12%)
...
1868: Grant 15,546 (55.93%)–Seymour 12,250 (44.07%)
1872: Grant 15,710 (60.10%)–Greeley 10,428 (39.90%)
1876: Tilden 23,690 (54.63%)–Hayes 19,676 (45.37%)
1880: Hancock 27,421 (51.41%)–Garfield 25,550 (47.90%)–Weaver 293 (0.55%)
1884: Cleveland 32,572 (55.80%)–Blaine 20,827 (35.68%)–Butler 3,718 (6.37%)–St. John 1,251 (2.14%)
1888: Cleveland 36,690 (56.25%)–Harrison 27,762 (42.56%)
1892: Cleveland 41,931 (56.00%)–Harrison 31,555 (42.14%)
1896: McKinley 48,156 (58.51%)–Bryan 27,111 (36.67%)–Palmer 3,037 (3.69%)
1900: Bryan 45,122 (53.81%)–McKinley 36,241 (43.22%)–Debs 1,198 (1.43%)
1904: Parker 49032 (54.11%)–Roosevelt 38423 (42.40%)–Debs 2,121 (2.34%)

I'm aware of this. My comment was a reflection on what I wasn't sure about. And at any rate, your numbers confirm my suspicion-that Grant won Boston in 1868 and 1872. After Grant, McKinley in 1896 was indeed the next Republican to carry it, followed by Taft in 1908. That means it's safe to assume that Lincoln won the city in 1864-and possibly 1860 as well, though you didn't include that. What about Andrew Jackson in 1828 and 1832?

I don't know how it voted at the presidential level, but this Wikipedia article calls Boston a "Whig stronghold."

[buritobr]

So, even in the time of the "solid south", some democrats used to win the northern city of Boston

[Senator Incitatus]

I don't know how it voted at the presidential level, but this Wikipedia article calls Boston a "Whig stronghold."

Almost definitely correct. Boston was probably competitive c. 1796–1808, strongly Adamsite 1824–36, and by the 1840s and 1850s the only divide was between the Cotton Whigs (domestic merchants and capitalists) and Conscience Whigs (preachers, academics, some naval merchants).

[H. Ross Peron]

So, even in the time of the "solid south", some democrats used to win the northern city of Boston

Yes, because Boston's population were disproportionately Irish Catholics especially after 1850 who were allied to the Southerners in the Democratic Party.

[Calthrina950]

I don't know how it voted at the presidential level, but this Wikipedia article calls Boston a "Whig stronghold."

Almost definitely correct. Boston was probably competitive c. 1796–1808, strongly Adamsite 1824–36, and by the 1840s and 1850s the only divide was between the Cotton Whigs (domestic merchants and capitalists) and Conscience Whigs (preachers, academics, some naval merchants).

I almost forgot that Adams dominated his home state of Massachusetts, receiving more than 70% of the vote there in 1824 and 1828, and that Henry Clay won the state by 26% over Andrew Jackson in 1832, with Jackson placing third behind Clay and William Wirt (the Anti-Masonic Party candidate). Adams swept every county in Massachusetts in 1824/28, and Clay carried the majority of the counties in 1832-with Wirt winning three counties and Jackson zero. So Adams and Clay almost certainly carried Boston. I wonder why Boston was so strongly Anti-Jacksonian, Whig, and Republican until 1872, and then Democratic in most elections afterwards. The 1870s did coincide with the beginning of the Gilded Age and of the late 19th century wave of European immigration into the United States, so it must have been something related to these events.

[bagelman]

Modern pattern is pretty clear, Republicans who jumped off the wagon during Bush Sr. didn't come back.