Why did Stevenson win Missouri in 1956?

[Alben Barkley]

Adlai Stevenson lost three other Southern/border states he won in 1952 (Kentucky, West Virginia, and Louisiana) and lost ground in others, yet somehow managed to flip Missouri in 1956. I can’t seem to find any explanation as to why. If anything you’d think Harry Truman’s presence as the incumbent president might have made it more likely to be the other way around, with Stevenson winning the state in 1952 but losing it in 1956 due to Ike’s popularity that managed to breach the Solid South and easily won the rest of the Midwest. Yet instead Ike narrowly won it in 1952 and narrowly lost it in 1956, the only state that flipped from him to Stevenson. This marked the only time Missouri was not a bellwether in the century between 1904 and 2004, making it an even stranger anomaly.

Does anyone know how or why this happened?

[TDAS04]

Missouri was close both times, and it fits with the pattern of the agricultural Midwest swinging Democratic that year.  Take a look at how the Dakotas swung against Ike!

[Matty]

why didn't ike do better in the deep south?

adlai was a liberal intellectual. Ike was a war hero from modest, non-east coast roots.

[RINO Tom]

why didn't ike do better in the deep south?

adlai was a liberal intellectual. Ike was a war hero from modest, non-east coast roots.

It wasn’t the first time Southerners happily voted for a liberal intellectual over a Northern (moderately) conservative Republican.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

why didn't ike do better in the deep south?

adlai was a liberal intellectual. Ike was a war hero from modest, non-east coast roots.

It wasn’t the first time Southerners happily voted for a liberal intellectual over a Northern (moderately) conservative Republican.

A "Yankee" Republican party was never going to be as strong in the Deep South as the GOP is today.

[TDAS04]

Ike went from winning Missouri by 2% to losing it by 0.2%.  The swing isn't that significant.  

This is like asking "why did FDR win Michigan in 1944?"  Yes, he had lost it four years earlier (and the Midwest generally swung right in 1944), but it's a matter of a 1-point win versus a 0.3-point loss.

[Alben Barkley]

why didn't ike do better in the deep south?

adlai was a liberal intellectual. Ike was a war hero from modest, non-east coast roots.

It wasn’t the first time Southerners happily voted for a liberal intellectual over a Northern (moderately) conservative Republican.

It was pretty much the last time however. And Ike made it WAY closer in the South than Dewey, Willkie, Landon, and most Republicans before them. He won Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida twice. He came very close to winning the Carolinas. As noted, he flipped Louisiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia the second time. He even made states like Arkansas and Alabama close compared to previous margins for Republicans there.

If anything, Ike’s gains in the South are too often underlooked; they were a sign of things to come and proof that the shift of the region from solidly Democratic territory was already well underway by that point (largely in response to the increasing social liberalism of FDR, Truman, and Stevenson). And that Southerners could and would vote Republican under the right circumstances, not just protest vote for Dixiecrats. Nixon and Goldwater would just solidify this.

In fact, Ike campaigned in the South against the advice of his campaign which wanted to write it off. Turns out he had the right instincts.

[Alben Barkley]

Ike went from winning Missouri by 2% to losing it by 0.2%.  The swing isn't that significant.  

This is like asking "why did FDR win Michigan in 1944?"  Yes, he had lost it four years earlier (and the Midwest generally swung right in 1944), but it's a matter of a 1-point win versus a 0.3-point loss.

Obviously the swing wasn’t huge but it is a bit of an oddity nonetheless.

Perhaps the explanation about parts of the rural midwest swinging against him explains it, but even then I’m not sure why. Was there some kind of agricultural crisis I’m not aware of?

[TDAS04]

Ike went from winning Missouri by 2% to losing it by 0.2%.  The swing isn't that significant.  

This is like asking "why did FDR win Michigan in 1944?"  Yes, he had lost it four years earlier (and the Midwest generally swung right in 1944), but it's a matter of a 1-point win versus a 0.3-point loss.

Obviously the swing wasn’t huge but it is a bit of an oddity nonetheless.

Perhaps the explanation about parts of the rural midwest swinging against him explains it, but even then I’m not sure why. Was there some kind of agricultural crisis I’m not aware of?

There was a sharp increase in farms being sold or consolidated in the 1950s.  New technology resulted in some loss of jobs.

[Dead Parrot]

Ike went from winning Missouri by 2% to losing it by 0.2%.  The swing isn't that significant.  

This is like asking "why did FDR win Michigan in 1944?"  Yes, he had lost it four years earlier (and the Midwest generally swung right in 1944), but it's a matter of a 1-point win versus a 0.3-point loss.

Obviously the swing wasn’t huge but it is a bit of an oddity nonetheless.

Perhaps the explanation about parts of the rural midwest swinging against him explains it, but even then I’m not sure why. Was there some kind of agricultural crisis I’m not aware of?

Apparently Ezra Taft Benson, Eisenhower's Agriculture Secretary, was deeply unpopular in the Farm Belt due to his opposition to subsidies and price controls as socialist. (Benson was outspokenly anticommunist and would go on to endorse the John Birch Society.)

[junior chįmp]

Ike went from winning Missouri by 2% to losing it by 0.2%.  The swing isn't that significant.  

This is like asking "why did FDR win Michigan in 1944?"  Yes, he had lost it four years earlier (and the Midwest generally swung right in 1944), but it's a matter of a 1-point win versus a 0.3-point loss.

Obviously the swing wasn’t huge but it is a bit of an oddity nonetheless.

Perhaps the explanation about parts of the rural midwest swinging against him explains it, but even then I’m not sure why. Was there some kind of agricultural crisis I’m not aware of?

There was a sharp increase in farms being sold or consolidated in the 1950s.  New technology resulted in some loss of jobs.

This is an interesting point because 1956 was the beginning of farmer turnout rising in presidential elections. Farmers pre 50s had very low turnout rates and were considered one of the most apathetic voting blocs in the country.



If you look at which states swung to Stevenson from 1952 to 1956, you see a pattern of rural farm states swinging left which seem to correspond with increased farmer turnout.

Idaho- Stevenson 34.42% to 38.8%
Wyoming- Stevenson 37.09% to 39.9%
Montana- Stevenson 40.1% to 42.9%
North Dakota-Stevenson 28.39% to 38.1%
South Dakota- Stevenson 30.73% to 41.6%
Iowa- Stevenson 35.59% to 40.7%
Nebraska- Stevenson 30.85% to 34.5%
Kansas- Stevenson 30.50% to 34.2%

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

Adlai Stevenson lost three other Southern/border states he won in 1952 (Kentucky, West Virginia, and Louisiana) and lost ground in others, yet somehow managed to flip Missouri in 1956. I can’t seem to find any explanation as to why. If anything you’d think Harry Truman’s presence as the incumbent president might have made it more likely to be the other way around, with Stevenson winning the state in 1952 but losing it in 1956 due to Ike’s popularity that managed to breach the Solid South and easily won the rest of the Midwest. Yet instead Ike narrowly won it in 1952 and narrowly lost it in 1956, the only state that flipped from him to Stevenson. This marked the only time Missouri was not a bellwether in the century between 1904 and 2004, making it an even stranger anomaly.

Does anyone know how or why this happened?

I think there was a rift between Truman and Stevenson in 52 so maybe this actually is what explains it.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

why didn't ike do better in the deep south?

adlai was a liberal intellectual. Ike was a war hero from modest, non-east coast roots.

Same reason Massachusetts elitist John Kerry still managed to do respectably in Appalachia, they were loyal Democrats.

[Podgy the Bear]

Adlai Stevenson lost three other Southern/border states he won in 1952 (Kentucky, West Virginia, and Louisiana) and lost ground in others, yet somehow managed to flip Missouri in 1956. I can’t seem to find any explanation as to why. If anything you’d think Harry Truman’s presence as the incumbent president might have made it more likely to be the other way around, with Stevenson winning the state in 1952 but losing it in 1956 due to Ike’s popularity that managed to breach the Solid South and easily won the rest of the Midwest. Yet instead Ike narrowly won it in 1952 and narrowly lost it in 1956, the only state that flipped from him to Stevenson. This marked the only time Missouri was not a bellwether in the century between 1904 and 2004, making it an even stranger anomaly.

Does anyone know how or why this happened?

I think there was a rift between Truman and Stevenson in 52 so maybe this actually is what explains it.

Actually, the rift between Truman and Stevenson was in 1956--as Truman backed Averell Harriman of NY for the nomination.   

Really, the slippage for Eisenhower in the overall Farm Belt vote was just enough to tip MO to Stevenson in 1956.    Eisenhower's totals in the rural counties close to IA and KS slid significantly.  Meanwhile, Stevenson held his margins in St. Louis and the Dixiecrat counties of SE Missouri to win the state.

The 1960 election was more of a repeat of 1952--as the rural margins trended back to Nixon.  However, JFK got increased vote totals in St. Louis (city/county) and Kansas City to pull MO by a similar slim margin.

[Would vote for Hillary Clinton over Joe Biden.]

why didn't ike do better in the deep south?

adlai was a liberal intellectual. Ike was a war hero from modest, non-east coast roots.

Same reason Massachusetts elitist John Kerry still managed to do respectably in Appalachia, they were loyal Democrats.

Yet when JFK came along, that was too much. Stevenson was a liberal intellectual from Illinois, Kennedy was a liberal intellectual from Massachusetts. JFK was just four years later.

[Mr. Smith]

Same reason farm states went heavily towards Dukakis and suburban ones stayed more towards Bush Sr 32 years later.

[Hope For A New Era]

Everyone talking about how farm states swung against Eisenhower and no one is talking about why.

There was a drought. It was most severe in Texas, but it affected the whole Midwest.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

why didn't ike do better in the deep south?

adlai was a liberal intellectual. Ike was a war hero from modest, non-east coast roots.

Same reason Massachusetts elitist John Kerry still managed to do respectably in Appalachia, they were loyal Democrats.

Yet when JFK came along, that was too much. Stevenson was a liberal intellectual from Illinois, Kennedy was a liberal intellectual from Massachusetts. JFK was just four years later.

JFK still did pretty well in the south though.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

why didn't ike do better in the deep south?

adlai was a liberal intellectual. Ike was a war hero from modest, non-east coast roots.

Same reason Massachusetts elitist John Kerry still managed to do respectably in Appalachia, they were loyal Democrats.

Yet when JFK came along, that was too much. Stevenson was a liberal intellectual from Illinois, Kennedy was a liberal intellectual from Massachusetts. JFK was just four years later.

JFK still did pretty well in the south though.

There's actually a further parallel here probably in that JFK lost a handful of counties (and the state of Tennessee) that had gone for Stevenson due to anti-Catholicism in the same way that Obama lost a handful of counties that had gone for Kerry due to racism despite the fact that in both instances the bigotry didn't prove to be an obstacle to their winning the presidency overall.

[TheTide]

Missouri is probably that kind of middle-of-the-road place where there is often some bitterness against the incumbent and a mood of protest. This caused a small but big enough swing for Stevenson to carry it.

[Tartarus Sauce]

People are mentioning the Midwest agricultural belt shifting to Stevenson, but it wasn't strictly a Midwestern phenomenon nor was it all of the Midwest. There's a contiguous stretch of land from the upper Midwest to the West Coast where the vast majority of rural counties shifted from Eisenhower to Stevenson. California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri all witnessed these countercyclical shifts from 1952-1956. The trend skips over Colorado, doesn't puncture into the South outside of northwestern Oklahoma and the Texas panhandle, and ends in western Wisconsin. Eastern Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio don't experience the rural Democratic shift.

1952



1956

[DS0816]

…This marked the only time Missouri was not a bellwether in the century between 1904 and 2004, making it an even stranger anomaly.

…

Prior to 2008 Barack Obama, all prevailing Democrats carried the state of Missouri.

In 1992, Bill Clinton had a higher margin in Missouri than in the U.S. Popular Vote.

The opposite happened in 1996.

That helps to partly explain 1956 Missouri.

[Motorcity]

Ike went from winning Missouri by 2% to losing it by 0.2%.  The swing isn't that significant.  

This is like asking "why did FDR win Michigan in 1944?"  Yes, he had lost it four years earlier (and the Midwest generally swung right in 1944), but it's a matter of a 1-point win versus a 0.3-point loss.

That said, why did FDR lose several plains and midwestern states in 1940 and 1944? I have never seen any material covering anger towards FDR in this period. One would think places like Ohio and Michigan benefitted greatly from his policies.

[TDAS04]

Ike went from winning Missouri by 2% to losing it by 0.2%.  The swing isn't that significant.  

This is like asking "why did FDR win Michigan in 1944?"  Yes, he had lost it four years earlier (and the Midwest generally swung right in 1944), but it's a matter of a 1-point win versus a 0.3-point loss.

That said, why did FDR lose several plains and midwestern states in 1940 and 1944? I have never seen any material covering anger towards FDR in this period. One would think places like Ohio and Michigan benefitted greatly from his policies.

Swings against FDR were especially sharp in areas where a large share of the population was of German ancestry.

Also, some people grew increasingly leery of the New Deal, and some felt that FDR had been President long enough, and there were other reasons.

[Motorcity]

Ike went from winning Missouri by 2% to losing it by 0.2%.  The swing isn't that significant.  

This is like asking "why did FDR win Michigan in 1944?"  Yes, he had lost it four years earlier (and the Midwest generally swung right in 1944), but it's a matter of a 1-point win versus a 0.3-point loss.

That said, why did FDR lose several plains and midwestern states in 1940 and 1944? I have never seen any material covering anger towards FDR in this period. One would think places like Ohio and Michigan benefitted greatly from his policies.

Thanks

I wonder why there isn't any articles or readings on this. But I doubt post WW2 anyone would say "I was pro-Germany so I didn't vote for FDR"

Perhaps places like MI and OH have somewhat recovered and didn't care for the New Deal anymore?


Swings against FDR were especially sharp in areas where a large share of the population was of German ancestry.

Also, some people grew increasingly leery of the New Deal, and some felt that FDR had been President long enough, and there were other reasons.