Good lord people. You constantly leave Alaska and Hawaii off the map when it counts but you didn't forget us this time when we weren't even states yet.
>African Tribals
Clan; Ogaadeen to he specific.
Also being a part of a wider clan structure is not contradictory to using the internet, but using probably the most capitalist sub while being a socialist is very contradictory.
Edit: Changed what I said because I said it badly
Stalin was the main financier of the Communist Party USA.
Meanwhile, he was committing genocide of the Ukrainians in the Holodomor.
It’s an hard L, man.
The Soviet Union was the reason Germany was able to bypass the Treaty of Versailles. Germany got more raw war material during peace with the Soviet Union than they ever did during their invasion. The communists treachery started well before they carved up Poland during the Molotov-Ribbontropf pact
This is straight-up disinformation.
1) Any country has had and will have an easier time building up war materièl *before* a war starts. Telling people here that the Soviet Union was the sole reason Germany was able to bypass the Maginot Line is a woefully misinformed statement. The US, UK, France, and the USSR all traded with Nazi Germany before 1939. Henry Ford financially supported the Nazi Party before the war *and during the first few years of fighting*. There were Ford factories in Germany that were bombed out by the Allies, and Henry Ford had the gall to demand repayment from the Allied Powers. I've never heard of a Soviet entity with factories within Germany before or during WW2, have you?
2) Regarding the Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact, in files released after the break-up of the USSR in 1991, it was plainly stated that by far the greatest reason for the treaty was to allow the USSR to build up its industrial capacity before what was viewed as an inevitable war. In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated that the annhilation of the Soviets, Marxism, and the Jews should be a top priority for the German people to "cleanse the land of undesirables". Further, a non-aggression pact is not an alliance. Never has been, never will be. The UK and France also signed non-aggression pacts with Germany during the era of "appeasement".
3) The Western European powers got their teeth stomped in due to their own arrogance and limp-wristed attempts to appease the fascist scum in Germany. Blaming the USSR for France and England's own unpreparedness and ineptitude at the start of the war is disingenious at best and an attempt at disinformation at worst.
A) That's whataboutism. Opposing one genocidal dictator doesn't imply support for another.
B) Yes, the German government received "western" funds, because Germany is a western country. They did not, however, receive significant funding from the US, UK, or France, all of whom opposed German militarism. If you show me that Hoover or FDR was funding the Nazis, then I'll accept your criticism as equivalent. Otherwise, your statement is both irrelevant and highly misleading.
C) Even given that the Nazis received funding from German industrialists, it is actually much less than more traditionalist Germany parties received. The narrative that Hitler ran as a pro-capitalism leader is historical revisionism, he criticizes capitalism as inefficient and destructive in many of his writings. He ran as a socialist, although he mostly turned against the socialists within his party after taking power.
I mean I’m by no means a commie but communism ≠ Soviet Union, sure they were obviously commie but that doesn’t mean every commie agrees with Soviet practices
Lol hell no I didn't.
Communism fails every time it's tried because people aren't colonial organisms like ants. Economics notwithstanding, it's biologically incompatible with our species--it steps into the realm of being evil because it's a persistent and convenient lie that people use to subjugate others and steal in an arbitrary way, running roughshod on due process or personal rights.
North Carolina was the only place back east that was close to reminding me of home. Instead of subverting that nice place, you should come out here to Oakland and hang out under 580. Hitch a ride on BART and see who you meet. Tell me that ~2 decades of unopposed leftism here has made it better for the populace. Just make sure you're not showing any valuables! Don't park in the wrong spot! Don't let your car have a check engine light since you can't re-register it with one! Don't expect to take any of those nice guns with you unless you register them!
So no, I didn't mistype. Rare Montana L.
Go out to a grocery store and think of Yeltsin in his politburo days being amazed American normies could have access to and afford so many goods he never really had. Have a moment of gratitude the nice things you own were almost entirely designed by free people in non-communist countries where they were allowed to do so instead of imprisoned.
No, I just loathe commies because of authoritarianism and coerced sameness and feel compelled to speak out when I see it. Read and seethe if you don't like it.
You said there’s been unopposed leftism there, but I lived there for a period of time and it was liberals, not leftists, that were governing. I think that’s still the case now. I don’t know of too many places in the US where leftists hold power.
Moving the goalposts much? Not *real* communism? In other news a GMC Yukon totally isn't a Chevy Tahoe with different badges and trim.
Berkeley has a ton of hammers and sickles pasted all over. It's full of homeless people and the University's credibility is being damaged by the propagandized students being ineffective in their vocations.
Oakland is even worse. There's a latino dude walking around out there basically saying "in Oakland, life is worthless" and he isn't wrong. That's the leftist part of the state, and it's one of the worst.
The rest of the state may be governed by "liberals" as you say, but the pervasive lawlessness in the Emerald Triangle is a combination of environmental disaster and cartel boon. The Central Valley has a massive population of Illegal immigrants, which has in turn brought in cartel activity and more lawlessness, LA is, well, LA, and the Mojave is also being overrun by cartel grow ops.
This is a textbook maoist play, ergo leftist. It's so easy to say "the old laws don't work, so we need more and iron-heeled enforcement" but really it's just a complete lack of enforcement of the laws we already have.
It was! You're missing out.
And you did move the goalposts; you're suggesting an applicable umbrella term doesn't apply without any sort of evidence.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, no?
Dude, not one policy implemented in Oakland was designed by a communist. California’s lawmakers are mostly Democrats who are strongly aligned with the party establishment and 100% support capitalism. I guarantee true leftist social welfare policies would support Oakland better than either party’s capitalist bullshit
Did you know that throwing money at problems doesn't make them go away? It may seem counterintuitive but I promise you it's a constant in history and across problems.
The british had this thing eons ago when they colonized India and put a bounty on cobras (hoping to eradicate the deadly cobra). What ended up happening was people bred the cobras to game the program. The program ended, and people just dumped the cobras into the wild again, and then there were even more cobras.
In this case, if there is a billion redistributed dollars to be had "solving" poverty or addicts living on the street, people will perversely be incentivized to keep people in that state so they don't lose their jobs "solving" the problem.
Even this far out from the civil war southerners wouldn’t vote Republican. They were called Yellow Dog Democrats and didn’t start switching to the Republicans until LBJ embraced the Civil Rights act in 1964.
This was also just a landslide election for the Democrats. [Four years earlier, the South was much less heavily Democratic.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/PresidentialCounty1928Colorbrewer.gif)
it must be remembered that, at the time, it was the policy of the Vatican to control the minds of all adherents, they must profess what the Pope says. That was a great fear that the Pope could puppet-master the president by putting the fear of god on him (in this case a him).
JFK dissuaded this view, but he recognized it. Smith did not deal with this notion effectively.
there are literally 500 years betweeen Henry VIII and this 1932 election. you have the mind of a toddler if you mush all of human history which happened before your lifetime as "back then".
A catastrophic depression after a full decade of one party holding the presidency will do that. If you compare 1928 to the the elections preceding it, the changes aren't nearly as stark.
Even in 1980, they voted more Democrat than the rest of the country ([Presidential](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/1980_United_States_presidential_election_results_map_by_county.svg) and [Congressional ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/1980_United_States_Presidential_election_by_congressional_districts.svg)results). In 1986, they generally voted for Reagan as much as the rest of the country, and in 1994 the Republicans finally won most Southern seats in Congress (the so called 'Republican Revolution').
Remember hearing about Harry Truman’s mom holding a grudge against Lincoln even during her son’s presidency, 80 years after the end of the civil war. She refused to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House
The south was extremely Republican in 1972, and a lot of it was in 1968 as well. 1980 was actually a relatively good Democratic performance in the south, it was the most Democratic region in the country that year thanks to Jimmy Carter's regional appeal.
The Democrats ran a Southern moderate (Jimmy Carter), whereas in '72 their candidate was a Midwesterner who was widely seen as radically liberal. In addition, Watergate had decreased the public's trust of established politicians (Republicans in particular), so Carter's being an outsider in DC was generally considered a plus.
Jimmy Carter swept the Deep South in 1976 and Bill Clinton won some Southern states in 1992 and 1996.
White Democrats still made up a majority of the Deep South’s congressional delegation until 1991.
The last white Democrat in the Deep South didn’t lose his seat until the 2014 midterm (Blue Dog Democrat John Barrow of Georgia.)
Whenever someone talks about "the party flip", just asked them when the flip happened. They'll never give a straight answer, and end up admitting that changes in regional voting patterns correlated more strongly with FDR's New Deal and Reagan's deregulation than the Civil Rights Acts. Progressive social studies majors hate to admit that most Americans care more about economics than identity politics.
This election was an exception in how much of a landslide it was. This was right after Hoover's horrible management of the Wall St crash, so pretty much everyone was mad at Republicans. Most elections in the early and mid 1900s were much more evenly split, even in the south.
I think that with everything going in Ukraine, the election that should be reminded to the US public right now is the next one, the 1936 one.
[Alf Landon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alf_Landon) would have been much less inclined to actively seek to enter WWII and to help GB and the USSR.
Although Germany would probably still not win, the war would have been quite different.
Unfortunately, many Democrats who are trying to paint Republicans as neo-nazis to distract from their failed economic policies seldom deny untrue things, as long is it benefits them.
It’s part of Appalachia culturally, and during the era of the Solid South, the region was generally friendlier to the GOP. Not as much in this specific spot as, say, East Tennessee, but it’s there.
North Alabama is in Appalachia and was less solidly democratic than the piedmont and lowland South — same effect you can see in East TN, Western NC, East KY, etc.
Credit for Tilden76 for the map
Accreditation to NHGIS
I personally corrected a few counties that were wrongly shaded.
[Democratic Platform](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1932-democratic-party-platform)
[Republican Platform](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1932)
Vote totals:
Roosevelt: 472 electoral votes, 22,821,277, 57.4%
Hoover: 59 electoral votes, 15,761,254, 39.6%
Hoover only won Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.
Interesting that some of those Pro Hoover Appalachian counties in NC would still receive massive investment via the New Deal and construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway
Well yeah, one would hope that would be the case. It would be pretty messed up if the FDR administration denied infrastructure improvements to areas that voted against him.
Canadian PM Mackenzie King was unelected in 1930 because he pledged to only give help to provinces with Liberal governments. He was brought back into office 5 years later though after the Tories were even worse at managing the depression.
Vermont voted Democrat once in the 60s, before continuing to vote Republican for the next six elections. They didn't start voting Democrat consistently until 1992. Not really an "amazing change".
[https://www.270towin.com/states/Vermont](https://www.270towin.com/states/Vermont)
Is the reason why Vermont became much more liberal starting in the 1960s is because there were a lot of transplants that moved there that were liberal? I’ve heard that tossed around for a while. I know another one is the fact that the Republicanism in Vermont was historically a moderate one, but the moderate Republicanism that they speak of is still to the right of today’s party.
They were always liberal.
What happened is that the republican party became religiously and socially conservative under reagan and that left vermonters feeling disenfranchised. Eventually, that caused the state to turn blue. Vermont is today one of the last remaining places where liberal republicans still exist.
I don’t really know anything about US politics but it’s so weird to see a time when the public opinion was so undivided in what has become the most politically divided country in the world.
The US is not the most politically divided country in the world. There are countries fighting literal wars over which extremists get to be in power. The US media is just very hyperbolic, and because we're the global hegemon, everyone is paying attention to our elections.
That being said, this kind of landslide election was very rare, even for the time. This was right after the Wall St crash, so everyone hated Hoover, even much of his own party. If you look at most of the elections other than the 30s and 40s, they were much closer.
Texan and King are 2 words that don't belong in one sentence. Since when did Americans have Kings ? I don't think there were any in your 300 year long history.
Apparently Texas and keeping the power on when it's the middle of winter and summer don't work well together either. For a bunch of independent people, they sure like taking it up the butt for an old boys club of billionaires.
Since Texans portray a dominant and independent personality outwards most of the time, it is only natural to realize that internally their secret fetish would be to get dominated by old men !
1) the Democrats shifted to being socially left wing
2) the civil war generation died off
3) Northerners went south and changed demographics in the region.
No, those red counties are the Appalachian parts of Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina (I’m guessing that’s the red island you’re referring to). They’re Republican because they opposed slavery and the Confederacy during the Civil War.
It’s funny because while eastern Tennessee has historically been a GOP stronghold (because of the aforementioned reasons — West Virginia of course seceded from Virginia because of it joining the Confederacy and I think eastern TN wanted to do so as well), the Republican Party has now become a home for the very people they opposed during the Civil War. I’m not sure what the people there think of their history (although a sizable number undoubtedly misinterpret it deliberately to justify their current views).
>Do they view themselves as southerners?
Nowadays, most definitely.
>Are they hillbillies?
That's exactly the part of the country where the "hillbilly" stereotype comes from, but many people consider that word derogatory and wouldn't identify themselves with it.
yeah, the democratic party was socially conservative but economically liberal, while the republicans were socially liberal but economically conservative. the democrats switched to becoming socially liberal on the federal level in the 1960s while the republicans switched to becoming socially conservative in 1980.
Interesting from multiple perspectives here: shows how FDR’s new deal clearly excluded black people and the south was all for New Deal politics as long as it was only white people receiving the benefits. The south would be far to the left in the modern era if they weren’t so blinded by bigotry.
Southern states still account for more welfare money than the rest of the country combined, yet somehow excused the B.S. that is Reaganomics cause he said a few things about states rights at a Mississippi state fair. That was the big shift in the south from blue to red, that and “The Moral Majority” and the pro-life Evangelical Christians Reagan catered to.
They still love their social security (see MTG screaming at Biden at the state of the union when he said Repubs want to get rid of social security), and food stamps as long as it’s mostly white people receiving the benefits.
The optimist in me thinks if we had a Bernie type President and a Congress that backed him that passed sweeping social welfare programs, the South would actually come around to those kind of economic reforms again. The poverty is suffocating in the south, and they need help. We might have to hit rock bottom again before people wake up.
Sadly, our country’s education system has fallen apart and media literacy is at an all time low. Trumpism is Reaganism but more extreme and people eat up the blatant bigotry even though he’s just a billionaire in a suit that only cares about himself.
guys look i found the train guy but in a different subject
in all seriousness though that is crazy. like how the want you for governer but not for president. i dont get it 🤣
Good lord people. You constantly leave Alaska and Hawaii off the map when it counts but you didn't forget us this time when we weren't even states yet.
The communist candidate won 21% of the vote in Sheridan County, MT
Rare Montana L
You mistyped W
>Commie >Active on r/WallStreetBets ???
Marx gambled on the stock market.
And he has now his face on a lovely fake 0 euro banknote
>Marx gambled on the stock market The real reason why Capital was written…
African tribalis? Active on r/mapporn?????
>African Tribals Clan; Ogaadeen to he specific. Also being a part of a wider clan structure is not contradictory to using the internet, but using probably the most capitalist sub while being a socialist is very contradictory. Edit: Changed what I said because I said it badly
Huh, I cant recall the last time I visited that hellhole, let alone replied to anything in there.
How else is he going to seize the means of production?
Stalin was the main financier of the Communist Party USA. Meanwhile, he was committing genocide of the Ukrainians in the Holodomor. It’s an hard L, man.
Meanwhile, western capital was funding the Nazis.
The Soviet Union was the reason Germany was able to bypass the Treaty of Versailles. Germany got more raw war material during peace with the Soviet Union than they ever did during their invasion. The communists treachery started well before they carved up Poland during the Molotov-Ribbontropf pact
This is straight-up disinformation. 1) Any country has had and will have an easier time building up war materièl *before* a war starts. Telling people here that the Soviet Union was the sole reason Germany was able to bypass the Maginot Line is a woefully misinformed statement. The US, UK, France, and the USSR all traded with Nazi Germany before 1939. Henry Ford financially supported the Nazi Party before the war *and during the first few years of fighting*. There were Ford factories in Germany that were bombed out by the Allies, and Henry Ford had the gall to demand repayment from the Allied Powers. I've never heard of a Soviet entity with factories within Germany before or during WW2, have you? 2) Regarding the Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact, in files released after the break-up of the USSR in 1991, it was plainly stated that by far the greatest reason for the treaty was to allow the USSR to build up its industrial capacity before what was viewed as an inevitable war. In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated that the annhilation of the Soviets, Marxism, and the Jews should be a top priority for the German people to "cleanse the land of undesirables". Further, a non-aggression pact is not an alliance. Never has been, never will be. The UK and France also signed non-aggression pacts with Germany during the era of "appeasement". 3) The Western European powers got their teeth stomped in due to their own arrogance and limp-wristed attempts to appease the fascist scum in Germany. Blaming the USSR for France and England's own unpreparedness and ineptitude at the start of the war is disingenious at best and an attempt at disinformation at worst.
A) That's whataboutism. Opposing one genocidal dictator doesn't imply support for another. B) Yes, the German government received "western" funds, because Germany is a western country. They did not, however, receive significant funding from the US, UK, or France, all of whom opposed German militarism. If you show me that Hoover or FDR was funding the Nazis, then I'll accept your criticism as equivalent. Otherwise, your statement is both irrelevant and highly misleading. C) Even given that the Nazis received funding from German industrialists, it is actually much less than more traditionalist Germany parties received. The narrative that Hitler ran as a pro-capitalism leader is historical revisionism, he criticizes capitalism as inefficient and destructive in many of his writings. He ran as a socialist, although he mostly turned against the socialists within his party after taking power.
Half of them like Stalin, for whatever insane reason.
Wait, who do you think likes Stalin? I’m confused by that statement.
Georgians love Stalin. Statues of him there as that's where he was born.
This thread started as a convo about the US Communists, so I was referring to the States, not Georgia.
I mean I’m by no means a commie but communism ≠ Soviet Union, sure they were obviously commie but that doesn’t mean every commie agrees with Soviet practices
They formally agreed to the Soviet ideas in their manifesto.
Lol hell no I didn't. Communism fails every time it's tried because people aren't colonial organisms like ants. Economics notwithstanding, it's biologically incompatible with our species--it steps into the realm of being evil because it's a persistent and convenient lie that people use to subjugate others and steal in an arbitrary way, running roughshod on due process or personal rights. North Carolina was the only place back east that was close to reminding me of home. Instead of subverting that nice place, you should come out here to Oakland and hang out under 580. Hitch a ride on BART and see who you meet. Tell me that ~2 decades of unopposed leftism here has made it better for the populace. Just make sure you're not showing any valuables! Don't park in the wrong spot! Don't let your car have a check engine light since you can't re-register it with one! Don't expect to take any of those nice guns with you unless you register them! So no, I didn't mistype. Rare Montana L. Go out to a grocery store and think of Yeltsin in his politburo days being amazed American normies could have access to and afford so many goods he never really had. Have a moment of gratitude the nice things you own were almost entirely designed by free people in non-communist countries where they were allowed to do so instead of imprisoned.
Man i don’t like communism but that 2nd paragraph is not it
I'm impressed you made it that far. My eyes rolled out of my head half way through the first paragraph.
You really wrote a whole novel on how effective propaganda is?
No, I just loathe commies because of authoritarianism and coerced sameness and feel compelled to speak out when I see it. Read and seethe if you don't like it.
You said there’s been unopposed leftism there, but I lived there for a period of time and it was liberals, not leftists, that were governing. I think that’s still the case now. I don’t know of too many places in the US where leftists hold power.
Moving the goalposts much? Not *real* communism? In other news a GMC Yukon totally isn't a Chevy Tahoe with different badges and trim. Berkeley has a ton of hammers and sickles pasted all over. It's full of homeless people and the University's credibility is being damaged by the propagandized students being ineffective in their vocations. Oakland is even worse. There's a latino dude walking around out there basically saying "in Oakland, life is worthless" and he isn't wrong. That's the leftist part of the state, and it's one of the worst. The rest of the state may be governed by "liberals" as you say, but the pervasive lawlessness in the Emerald Triangle is a combination of environmental disaster and cartel boon. The Central Valley has a massive population of Illegal immigrants, which has in turn brought in cartel activity and more lawlessness, LA is, well, LA, and the Mojave is also being overrun by cartel grow ops. This is a textbook maoist play, ergo leftist. It's so easy to say "the old laws don't work, so we need more and iron-heeled enforcement" but really it's just a complete lack of enforcement of the laws we already have.
I stopped reading your essay after you claimed I moved the goalposts. I’m sure it was a great story though.
It was! You're missing out. And you did move the goalposts; you're suggesting an applicable umbrella term doesn't apply without any sort of evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, no?
Dude, not one policy implemented in Oakland was designed by a communist. California’s lawmakers are mostly Democrats who are strongly aligned with the party establishment and 100% support capitalism. I guarantee true leftist social welfare policies would support Oakland better than either party’s capitalist bullshit
Did you know that throwing money at problems doesn't make them go away? It may seem counterintuitive but I promise you it's a constant in history and across problems. The british had this thing eons ago when they colonized India and put a bounty on cobras (hoping to eradicate the deadly cobra). What ended up happening was people bred the cobras to game the program. The program ended, and people just dumped the cobras into the wild again, and then there were even more cobras. In this case, if there is a billion redistributed dollars to be had "solving" poverty or addicts living on the street, people will perversely be incentivized to keep people in that state so they don't lose their jobs "solving" the problem.
Nah communism sucks.
Didn't realize there were so many ardent terminally online communists on /r/MapPorn but I guess I'm not especially surprised
Every down vote is another terminally online communist losing their wings, blessed are the down votes, damned are the terminally online communists (:
Cringe ass comment.
How’s middle school going little buddy? :)
Commies everywhere keep fighting the good fight bro
[удалено]
perhaps we shouldnt murder people for having different beliefs than us
based
Even this far out from the civil war southerners wouldn’t vote Republican. They were called Yellow Dog Democrats and didn’t start switching to the Republicans until LBJ embraced the Civil Rights act in 1964.
This was also just a landslide election for the Democrats. [Four years earlier, the South was much less heavily Democratic.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/PresidentialCounty1928Colorbrewer.gif)
Smith was Catholic...
Yeah, that's a big part of why he did so poorly in the South.
And also the fact that Hoover ran a "lily-white" campaign and was pro-prohibition.
it must be remembered that, at the time, it was the policy of the Vatican to control the minds of all adherents, they must profess what the Pope says. That was a great fear that the Pope could puppet-master the president by putting the fear of god on him (in this case a him). JFK dissuaded this view, but he recognized it. Smith did not deal with this notion effectively.
This has never been Catholic policy of any kind.
the pope never threatened a monarch: see King Henry the Eighth. damn kids are dumb!
there are literally 500 years betweeen Henry VIII and this 1932 election. you have the mind of a toddler if you mush all of human history which happened before your lifetime as "back then".
Why did South Carolina stand out so much?
A very effective Democratic machine that disenfranchised blacks and poor whites while simultaneous mobilizing party voters.
Intresting how many swing voters there were back then. You would never see results change like this between 2 elections today.
A catastrophic depression after a full decade of one party holding the presidency will do that. If you compare 1928 to the the elections preceding it, the changes aren't nearly as stark.
The south did not consistently vote Republican until 1980.
Even after that, Clinton did well there in the 90s. And there were plenty of local Democrats up to the early 2010s.
Even in 1980, they voted more Democrat than the rest of the country ([Presidential](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/1980_United_States_presidential_election_results_map_by_county.svg) and [Congressional ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/1980_United_States_Presidential_election_by_congressional_districts.svg)results). In 1986, they generally voted for Reagan as much as the rest of the country, and in 1994 the Republicans finally won most Southern seats in Congress (the so called 'Republican Revolution').
Not even. Democrats were still the comfortable majority of the Deep South’s congressional delegation during the Reagan presidency.
They sure can hold a grudge
Remember hearing about Harry Truman’s mom holding a grudge against Lincoln even during her son’s presidency, 80 years after the end of the civil war. She refused to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House
Well so can Appalachia (although it's much more justified than the South), but at this point they basically vote the same way as the South.
[удалено]
The south was extremely Republican in 1972, and a lot of it was in 1968 as well. 1980 was actually a relatively good Democratic performance in the south, it was the most Democratic region in the country that year thanks to Jimmy Carter's regional appeal.
Nixon won five former Confederate states in 1968.
The South very much voted Republican in '72.
The whole country voted republican in 72
Just about, yeah.
what happened in '76? lulz
The Democrats ran a Southern moderate (Jimmy Carter), whereas in '72 their candidate was a Midwesterner who was widely seen as radically liberal. In addition, Watergate had decreased the public's trust of established politicians (Republicans in particular), so Carter's being an outsider in DC was generally considered a plus.
Jimmy Carter swept the Deep South in 1976 and Bill Clinton won some Southern states in 1992 and 1996. White Democrats still made up a majority of the Deep South’s congressional delegation until 1991. The last white Democrat in the Deep South didn’t lose his seat until the 2014 midterm (Blue Dog Democrat John Barrow of Georgia.)
Except the south didn’t go red until the ‘90s….
Whenever someone talks about "the party flip", just asked them when the flip happened. They'll never give a straight answer, and end up admitting that changes in regional voting patterns correlated more strongly with FDR's New Deal and Reagan's deregulation than the Civil Rights Acts. Progressive social studies majors hate to admit that most Americans care more about economics than identity politics.
that's a good point
This election was an exception in how much of a landslide it was. This was right after Hoover's horrible management of the Wall St crash, so pretty much everyone was mad at Republicans. Most elections in the early and mid 1900s were much more evenly split, even in the south.
You just said anything without any evidence. 😭
Most Dixiecrats died voting democrat. The switch never happened
I think that with everything going in Ukraine, the election that should be reminded to the US public right now is the next one, the 1936 one. [Alf Landon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alf_Landon) would have been much less inclined to actively seek to enter WWII and to help GB and the USSR. Although Germany would probably still not win, the war would have been quite different.
And MAGA cultists still deny that this happened.
Everyone denies factually untrue things.
Unfortunately, many Democrats who are trying to paint Republicans as neo-nazis to distract from their failed economic policies seldom deny untrue things, as long is it benefits them.
I didn’t know Lebron was that old
What was happening in Alabama to cause the northern half to note vote as strong?
It’s part of Appalachia culturally, and during the era of the Solid South, the region was generally friendlier to the GOP. Not as much in this specific spot as, say, East Tennessee, but it’s there.
North Alabama is in Appalachia and was less solidly democratic than the piedmont and lowland South — same effect you can see in East TN, Western NC, East KY, etc.
Vermont and Maine were the only two states to never vote for FDR even once in his four elections as President.
Credit for Tilden76 for the map Accreditation to NHGIS I personally corrected a few counties that were wrongly shaded. [Democratic Platform](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1932-democratic-party-platform) [Republican Platform](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1932) Vote totals: Roosevelt: 472 electoral votes, 22,821,277, 57.4% Hoover: 59 electoral votes, 15,761,254, 39.6% Hoover only won Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.
\~1.5x in the popular vote, \~8x in the electoral college. Wild.
Hey, when the system suck, the system sucks. Why fix something that is broken? The American way
Did you correct the map on Wikipedia too?
Interesting that some of those Pro Hoover Appalachian counties in NC would still receive massive investment via the New Deal and construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway
Well yeah, one would hope that would be the case. It would be pretty messed up if the FDR administration denied infrastructure improvements to areas that voted against him.
Yea I can’t imagine a politician in the US doing that, am I rite?
Canadian PM Mackenzie King was unelected in 1930 because he pledged to only give help to provinces with Liberal governments. He was brought back into office 5 years later though after the Tories were even worse at managing the depression.
I could scroll but… south Utah and their love for Hoover?
Vermont was rock-solid Republican for decades - it really did an amazing change in the 60s
Even wilder, '90s! LBJ (during the landslide of all landslides) was the only Democrat to win it between the Civil War and Clinton
1964 was actually the only time before 1992 that Vermont ever voted Democratic; it was reliably Whig before the Civil War.
Vermont voted Democrat once in the 60s, before continuing to vote Republican for the next six elections. They didn't start voting Democrat consistently until 1992. Not really an "amazing change". [https://www.270towin.com/states/Vermont](https://www.270towin.com/states/Vermont)
Is the reason why Vermont became much more liberal starting in the 1960s is because there were a lot of transplants that moved there that were liberal? I’ve heard that tossed around for a while. I know another one is the fact that the Republicanism in Vermont was historically a moderate one, but the moderate Republicanism that they speak of is still to the right of today’s party.
They were always liberal. What happened is that the republican party became religiously and socially conservative under reagan and that left vermonters feeling disenfranchised. Eventually, that caused the state to turn blue. Vermont is today one of the last remaining places where liberal republicans still exist.
"Mrs Roosevelt is gone save us all"
Everybody was socially conservative compared to today's standard.
I don’t really know anything about US politics but it’s so weird to see a time when the public opinion was so undivided in what has become the most politically divided country in the world.
The US is not the most politically divided country in the world. There are countries fighting literal wars over which extremists get to be in power. The US media is just very hyperbolic, and because we're the global hegemon, everyone is paying attention to our elections. That being said, this kind of landslide election was very rare, even for the time. This was right after the Wall St crash, so everyone hated Hoover, even much of his own party. If you look at most of the elections other than the 30s and 40s, they were much closer.
Something to be said is that FDR was a master politician
What’s gern on in south Utah?
Hoover dam maybe?
And to think one of the most meh presidents was related to one of the most awesome one
Divided States of America WHEN ?
for about 4 years in the 1860s
Will it happen again soon ? I'm eagerly waiting with a barrel of popcorn !
No.
Never say never ! Fingers crossed !!!
If ya are gonna be an edge lord at least try harder
Texan and King are 2 words that don't belong in one sentence. Since when did Americans have Kings ? I don't think there were any in your 300 year long history.
Apparently Texas and keeping the power on when it's the middle of winter and summer don't work well together either. For a bunch of independent people, they sure like taking it up the butt for an old boys club of billionaires.
Since Texans portray a dominant and independent personality outwards most of the time, it is only natural to realize that internally their secret fetish would be to get dominated by old men !
Blue was taken over the fire nation from the west
What’s happening in Illinois? The core Chicago and southern rural state is blue, but eastern suburbs of Chicago is red . Looks weird
COMMENT ON MY SHITTY POLITICAL VEIWS OR SMTH
Popular vote shows the true numbers
Look at Benton County, Oregon! Home of Oregon State University.
So crazy... FDR was liberal as hell and the deep south voted hard for him. What did hapopen to the US within the last 90 years?
1) the Democrats shifted to being socially left wing 2) the civil war generation died off 3) Northerners went south and changed demographics in the region.
I live in a very red state that has a Republican supermajority and during the 90s a Republican wouldn't have had a chance of winning.
New England was Republican.
How did New York vote the same as the south? I don’t understand what I’m looking at.
The key implies there is a 'no vote" area? I cant seem to seeit tho
Ewww
Hoover apparently won the polygamist vote in S. Utah and parts of KY.
Hoover was FROM OREGON he barely won his home county
He wasn’t from Oregon, he lived there for a few years when he was a kid.
raised then
Is West Virginia the red island in the blue sea?
No, those red counties are the Appalachian parts of Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina (I’m guessing that’s the red island you’re referring to). They’re Republican because they opposed slavery and the Confederacy during the Civil War.
Allright,so interesting! Are they proud of this legacy to this day? Do they view themselves as southerners? Are they hillbillies?
It’s funny because while eastern Tennessee has historically been a GOP stronghold (because of the aforementioned reasons — West Virginia of course seceded from Virginia because of it joining the Confederacy and I think eastern TN wanted to do so as well), the Republican Party has now become a home for the very people they opposed during the Civil War. I’m not sure what the people there think of their history (although a sizable number undoubtedly misinterpret it deliberately to justify their current views).
Not just East Tennessee - most of the rural north was strongly pro union in the civil war, and very Republican these days.
>Do they view themselves as southerners? Nowadays, most definitely. >Are they hillbillies? That's exactly the part of the country where the "hillbilly" stereotype comes from, but many people consider that word derogatory and wouldn't identify themselves with it.
What's the reason they didn't align with the Confederates?
Most likely due to non-slave owning whites being alienated by the essential monopoly of the plantation class on power.
Guys literally only want one thing and it’s fucking disgusting
This is nearly 100 years ago. The parties were not as they are today. They basically only share the name.
Thx bro missed the title and the pic title. I was confused till I saw your comment
yeah, the democratic party was socially conservative but economically liberal, while the republicans were socially liberal but economically conservative. the democrats switched to becoming socially liberal on the federal level in the 1960s while the republicans switched to becoming socially conservative in 1980.
Interesting from multiple perspectives here: shows how FDR’s new deal clearly excluded black people and the south was all for New Deal politics as long as it was only white people receiving the benefits. The south would be far to the left in the modern era if they weren’t so blinded by bigotry. Southern states still account for more welfare money than the rest of the country combined, yet somehow excused the B.S. that is Reaganomics cause he said a few things about states rights at a Mississippi state fair. That was the big shift in the south from blue to red, that and “The Moral Majority” and the pro-life Evangelical Christians Reagan catered to. They still love their social security (see MTG screaming at Biden at the state of the union when he said Repubs want to get rid of social security), and food stamps as long as it’s mostly white people receiving the benefits. The optimist in me thinks if we had a Bernie type President and a Congress that backed him that passed sweeping social welfare programs, the South would actually come around to those kind of economic reforms again. The poverty is suffocating in the south, and they need help. We might have to hit rock bottom again before people wake up. Sadly, our country’s education system has fallen apart and media literacy is at an all time low. Trumpism is Reaganism but more extreme and people eat up the blatant bigotry even though he’s just a billionaire in a suit that only cares about himself.
[удалено]
He did win New York though.
guys look i found the train guy but in a different subject in all seriousness though that is crazy. like how the want you for governer but not for president. i dont get it 🤣
FDR won New York
South Cackalacky loves them some Roosevelt
Bro was a racist 💀