Hoover won about half the South, as did Eisenhower. Admittedly, that isn’t so surprising, since they also won the rest of the country.
You can go on believing that southern Democrats were all along really big government liberals who eventually saw the light and became conservatives, if you like.
Rational people can recognize that they were intensely conservative in all areas, except of course in race where I believe their views were directly contradictory to real American conservatism.
As I’ve noted before, the notion that GOP = conservative and Democrat = liberal wasn’t always true. Both parties had conservative and liberal wings, the relative strength of which waxed and waned. The conservative wing of the Democrats was centered in the South. but it was strong in the North too for a long time. Liberals finally gained the upper hand in 72.
Race and the aftermath of war explain the Solid South a whole lot better than a desire for big government. This is of course why the Deep South first deserted the Democratic Party in 48 and 68. Race, not size of government.
Hoover and Eisenhower both did better in the South than Goldwater.
Sherman Logan:
"Hoover and Eisenhower both did better in the South than Goldwater...
You can go on believing that southern Democrats were all along really big government liberals who eventually saw the light and became conservatives, if you like." Well, first of all, those elections which you claim Republicans did so well in the Deep South look to me like Solid Democrat South.
In elections where Dems won big (i.e., FDR 1932 etc.) and only a few states went Republican, those few states were never Southern.
So, I don't "get" where you're coming from.
Hoover 1928:
Eisenhower 1952:
Eisenhower 1956:
