Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Postscript: Democratic Fortunes in the Northeast in 2010
- 1 Party Strategies and Transition in the Northeast
- 2 Party Pursuits and the Sources of Change
- 3 The First Republican Losses
- 4 Searching for a Majority, the Rise of Conservatives, and Second Losses
- 5 Interpreting the Goldwater Election and Pursuing the South
- 6 Social Change, Party Response, and Further Republican Losses
- 7 National Parties and the Position of the Northeast
- 8 The Process of Change and the Future
- Index
- References
3 - The First Republican Losses
Democratic Gains in the 1930s
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Postscript: Democratic Fortunes in the Northeast in 2010
- 1 Party Strategies and Transition in the Northeast
- 2 Party Pursuits and the Sources of Change
- 3 The First Republican Losses
- 4 Searching for a Majority, the Rise of Conservatives, and Second Losses
- 5 Interpreting the Goldwater Election and Pursuing the South
- 6 Social Change, Party Response, and Further Republican Losses
- 7 National Parties and the Position of the Northeast
- 8 The Process of Change and the Future
- Index
- References
Summary
OVERVIEW
From 1900 through 1926, Republicans dominated the Northeast. Democrats did somewhat better in 1928 in the region, and then from 1930 to 1936 they made major gains. While Democrats lost some of those gains by 1940, Republican support never returned to the level that prevailed in 1900–26. The Democratic gains of the 1930s were echoed in the rest of the nation and made the Democrats the national majority party for decades to come.
Why did this first transition occur? Much of the change is attributed to the Great Depression. Republicans were in power when it began in 1929 and in response the electorate blamed them and voted Democratic. However, this was not a simple case of economic events determining change. The transformation in the Northeast was also a product of party strategies. Parties make choices and create identities and that affects whom they attract or lose. The Northeast had undergone significant social change, becoming more urban and populated by immigrants. The Democratic Party, with some internal conflict, was trying to respond to these social trends and make inroads into the region. They had a long-term goal of bringing industrial workers, city dwellers, and immigrants and their descendants into the party. The Great Depression finally brought them those groups, but then Roosevelt had to work to retain them. The party enjoyed some modest gains among these groups even in the 1920s, but not to the level that occurred in the 1930s.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Counter RealignmentPolitical Change in the Northeastern United States, pp. 32 - 54Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (New York: W.W. Norton, 1970)Google Scholar
, Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002)Google Scholar
and , “The 1896 Realignment: A Reassessment,” American Politics Research 33 (January 2005): 3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877–1917 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 340–408Google Scholar
, Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919–1939 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990)Google Scholar
, The Creation of a Democratic Majority 1928–1936 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979)Google Scholar
, The Politics of Provincialism: The Democratic Party in Transition 1918–1932 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968)Google Scholar
, “American Political Parties and the Rise of the Cities: An Interpretation,” Journal of American History 51 (June 1964), 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Building a Democratic Political Order: Reshaping American Liberalism in the 1930s and 1940s (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 82–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Democratic Party Heads North, 1877–1962 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 156–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Bold Relief: Institutional Politics and the Origins of Modern American Social Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998)Google Scholar
, Parties Matter: Realignment and the Return of Partisan Behavior (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2006), 137–143Google Scholar
, “American Political Parties and the Rise of the Cities: An Interpretation,” Journal of American History 51 (June 1964), 41–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “The Influence of Metropolitan Party Pluralities in Presidential Elections since 1920: A Study of Twelve Key Cities,” American Political Science Review 43 (December 1949), 1189–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “After the Critical Election: Presidential Leadership, Competition and the Consolidation of the New Deal Realignment,” British Journal of Political Science, 32, no. 2 (April, 2002), 221–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “The Change in the Political Alignment of Chicago's Negroes During the New Deal,” The Journal of American History, 56, no. 3 (December, 1969), 584–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Nemesis of Reform: The Republican Party During the New Deal (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994)Google Scholar
, Herbert Hoover: The Postpresidential Years 1933–1964: Volume 1: 1933–1945 (Stanford, CA: The Hoover Institution Press, 1983), 8–9Google Scholar
and , Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)Google Scholar
, The Parties: Republicans and Democrats in This Century (New York: Pocket Books, 1978), 36–37Google Scholar
, Congressional Conservatism and the New Deal: The Growth of the Conservative Coalition in Congress, 1933–1939 (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1967)Google Scholar
, Party Ideologies in America, 1828–1996 (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Presidents, Parties, and the State: A Party System Perspective on Democratic Regulatory Choice, 1884–1936 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 200–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ed., Thomas E. Dewey on the Two-Party System (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966), 9Google Scholar
, and James McClellan, The Political Principles of Robert A. Taft (New York: Fleet Press Corp., 1967), 52Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.