1928 United States presidential election in North Dakota

The 1928 United States presidential election in North Dakota took place on November 4, 1924, as part of the 1928 United States presidential election which was held throughout all contemporary 48 states. Voters chose five representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.

1928 United States presidential election in North Dakota

November 6, 1928
 
Nominee Herbert Hoover Al Smith
Party Republican Democratic
Home state California New York
Running mate Charles Curtis Joseph T. Robinson
Electoral vote 5 0
Popular vote 131,441 106,148
Percentage 54.80% 44.46%

County Results

President before election

Calvin Coolidge
Republican

Elected President

Herbert Hoover
Republican

Background

Ever since statehood, North Dakota had been overwhelmingly Republican at state level and in many presidential elections,[1] although progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson was able to carry the state in both his campaigns, in the second due to his anti-war platform. In the following two elections, the state’s voting would be shaped by its extreme isolationism in the aftermath of President Wilson’s pushing of the nation into World War I and his “League of Nations” proposal, to which the Russian-Germans who dominated North Dakota’s populace were vehemently opposed.[2] To North Dakota’s predominantly German-American populace, Wilson’s entry into the war and his support for the Treaty of Versailles was a betrayal, and farmers were also faced with a postwar agricultural depression as prices fell with reduced demand in Europe.[3] Consequently, North Dakota went for the isolationist Warren G. Harding over the pro-League Democrat Cox by four-to-one. In 1924, Robert La Follette under the Nonpartisan League banner attracted North Dakota’s isolationist electorate so strongly that he went within two percentage points of carrying the state. When La Follette died in 1925, his family did not endorse a Republican, but rather New York City Catholic Democrat Al Smith.[4]

Despite much antagonism with the Catholic Church amongst the German and Scandinavian Lutherans in North Dakota,[5] Smith would capitalise extremely well upon La Folette’s endorsement, due to the state being the most Catholic in the Midwest and a concurrent statewide repeal of Prohibition with the election.[6] further adding to support for the “wet” Smith. The local press in mid-September believed Smith would carry North Dakota.[7] and he later received further endorsement from the Nonpartisan League[8] despite opposition from Senators Lynn J. Frazier and Gerald P. Nye. Smith visited the state during his midwestern tour in late September and early October,[9] but during October the lessened unpopularity with farmers of Republican nominee Herbert Hoover’s led pundits to imagine the GOP would retain the state.[10]

Vote

In the days leading up to the actual poll, forecasts suggested Hoover would retain North Dakota for the GOP, and he did this by a margin of 10.33 percent. Despite losing the state, Smith made a massive advance upon James M. Cox’ and John W. Davis’ performances earlier in the decade. Whereas North Dakota had been Cox’ and Davis’ second-weakest state in 1920 and 1924, it voted 7.07 points more Democratic than the nation at-large in 1928. In some counties that were largely Lutheran, Smith still made tremendous gains because of his opposition to Prohibition,[5] which was powerfully opposed by liturgical German Lutherans. This allowed Smith to become the first Democrat to carry McIntosh County – which had been the nation’s most Republican county in 1920[11] and where no Democrat had previously gained over 22 percent of the vote – Logan County, Mercer County, Morton County and Sioux County.[12]

Results

Presidential Candidate Running Mate Party Electoral Vote (EV) Popular Vote (PV)
Herbert Hoover of California Charles Curtis Republican 5[13] 131,441 54.80%
Al Smith Joseph T. Robinson Democratic 0 106,648 44.46%
Norman Thomas James Maurer Social Production and Distribution 0 936 0.39%
William Z. Foster Benjamin Gitlow Workers’ and Farmers’ Government 0 842 0.35%

Results by county

County[14] Herbert Clark Hoover
Republican
Alfred Emmanuel Smith
Democratic
Norman Mattoon Thomas
Social Production and Distribution
William Z. Foster
Workers’ and Farmers’ Government
Margin Total votes cast
# % # % # % # % # %
Adams 1,590 70.67% 644 28.62% 13 0.58% 3 0.13% 946 42.04% 2,250
Barnes 3,755 53.01% 3,293 46.49% 15 0.21% 20 0.28% 462 6.52% 7,083
Benson 2,621 53.80% 2,194 45.03% 13 0.27% 44 0.90% 427 8.76% 4,872
Billings 458 52.22% 412 46.98% 6 0.68% 1 0.11% 46 5.25% 877
Bottineau 2,680 49.79% 2,648 49.19% 13 0.24% 42 0.78% 32 0.59% 5,383
Bowman 1,031 54.99% 821 43.79% 12 0.64% 11 0.59% 210 11.20% 1,875
Burke 2,002 58.38% 1,336 38.96% 70 2.04% 21 0.61% 666 19.42% 3,429
Burleigh 3,955 55.59% 3,076 43.23% 68 0.96% 16 0.22% 879 12.35% 7,115
Cass 12,480 66.18% 6,315 33.49% 14 0.07% 49 0.26% 6,165 32.69% 18,858
Cavalier 3,068 54.86% 2,510 44.89% 11 0.20% 3 0.05% 558 9.98% 5,592
Dickey 2,250 52.90% 1,977 46.48% 11 0.26% 15 0.35% 273 6.42% 4,253
Divide 1,963 60.36% 1,250 38.44% 25 0.77% 14 0.43% 713 21.92% 3,252
Dunn 1,360 46.50% 1,561 53.37% 4 0.14% 0 0.00% -201 -6.87% 2,925
Eddy 1,071 46.12% 1,240 53.40% 9 0.39% 2 0.09% -169 -7.28% 2,322
Emmons 1,792 46.25% 2,066 53.32% 12 0.31% 5 0.13% -274 -7.07% 3,875
Foster 1,137 48.99% 1,178 50.75% 5 0.22% 1 0.04% -41 -1.77% 2,321
Golden Valley 937 63.78% 522 35.53% 4 0.27% 6 0.41% 415 28.25% 1,469
Grand Forks 8,024 64.86% 4,300 34.76% 15 0.12% 32 0.26% 3,724 30.10% 12,371
Grant 1,759 54.59% 1,434 44.51% 14 0.43% 15 0.47% 325 10.09% 3,222
Griggs 1,329 52.45% 1,182 46.65% 13 0.51% 10 0.39% 147 5.80% 2,534
Hettinger 1,553 53.87% 1,323 45.89% 4 0.14% 3 0.10% 230 7.98% 2,883
Kidder 1,200 49.94% 1,190 49.52% 6 0.25% 7 0.29% 10 0.42% 2,403
LaMoure 2,245 55.00% 1,800 44.10% 16 0.39% 21 0.51% 445 10.90% 4,082
Logan 1,013 43.64% 1,293 55.71% 14 0.60% 1 0.04% -280 -12.06% 2,321
McHenry 2,914 53.04% 2,535 46.14% 21 0.38% 24 0.44% 379 6.90% 5,494
McIntosh 1,196 44.79% 1,474 55.21% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -278 -10.41% 2,670
McKenzie 2,100 61.14% 1,289 37.53% 35 1.02% 11 0.32% 811 23.61% 3,435
McLean 2,730 47.51% 2,855 49.69% 21 0.37% 140 2.44% -125 -2.18% 5,746
Mercer 971 37.45% 1,619 62.44% 3 0.12% 0 0.00% -648 -24.99% 2,593
Morton 2,881 42.04% 3,946 57.58% 17 0.25% 9 0.13% -1,065 -15.54% 6,853
Mountrail 2,354 52.30% 2,003 44.50% 108 2.40% 36 0.80% 351 7.80% 4,501
Nelson 2,364 60.18% 1,542 39.26% 11 0.28% 11 0.28% 822 20.93% 3,928
Oliver 680 51.67% 631 47.95% 4 0.30% 1 0.08% 49 3.72% 1,316
Pembina 3,324 60.75% 2,141 39.13% 7 0.13% 0 0.00% 1,183 21.62% 5,472
Pierce 1,469 47.60% 1,606 52.04% 5 0.16% 6 0.19% -137 -4.44% 3,086
Ramsey 3,246 54.62% 2,672 44.96% 8 0.13% 17 0.29% 574 9.66% 5,943
Ransom 2,613 60.43% 1,505 34.81% 198 4.58% 8 0.19% 1,108 25.62% 4,324
Renville 1,473 55.09% 1,174 43.90% 15 0.56% 12 0.45% 299 11.18% 2,674
Richland 4,251 53.89% 3,604 45.68% 15 0.19% 19 0.24% 647 8.20% 7,889
Rolette 1,327 37.50% 2,181 61.63% 12 0.34% 19 0.54% -854 -24.13% 3,539
Sargent 1,772 46.88% 1,989 52.62% 11 0.29% 8 0.21% -217 -5.74% 3,780
Sheridan 1,242 56.61% 944 43.03% 1 0.05% 7 0.32% 298 13.58% 2,194
Sioux 687 40.46% 988 58.19% 14 0.82% 9 0.53% -301 -17.73% 1,698
Slope 873 60.88% 542 37.80% 10 0.70% 9 0.63% 331 23.08% 1,434
Stark 1,924 37.28% 3,231 62.60% 4 0.08% 2 0.04% -1,307 -25.32% 5,161
Steele 1,574 57.34% 1,152 41.97% 6 0.22% 13 0.47% 422 15.37% 2,745
Stutsman 4,782 55.07% 3,873 44.60% 16 0.18% 13 0.15% 909 10.47% 8,684
Towner 1,588 54.23% 1,324 45.22% 12 0.41% 4 0.14% 264 9.02% 2,928
Traill 3,638 71.36% 1,447 28.38% 5 0.10% 8 0.16% 2,191 42.98% 5,098
Walsh 3,657 48.94% 3,798 50.83% 8 0.11% 9 0.12% -141 -1.89% 7,472
Ward 6,561 59.72% 4,362 39.71% 22 0.20% 41 0.37% 2,199 20.02% 10,986
Wells 2,364 52.39% 2,123 47.05% 18 0.40% 7 0.16% 241 5.34% 4,512
Williams 3,591 57.25% 2,503 39.91% 121 1.93% 57 0.91% 1,088 17.35% 6,272
Totals131,41954.79%106,64844.47%9360.39%8420.35%24,77110.33%239,845

References

  1. Hansen, John Mark; Shigeo Hirano, and Snyder, James M. Jr.; ‘Parties within Parties: Parties, Factions, and Coordinated Politics, 1900-1980’; in Gerber, Alan S. and Schickler, Eric; Governing in a Polarized Age: Elections, Parties, and Political Representation in America, pp. 143-159 ISBN 978-1-107-09509-0
  2. Lubell, Samuel; The Future of American Politics (1956), pp. 156-164
  3. Phillips, Kevin P.; The Emerging Republican Majority, pp. 420-423 ISBN 978-0-691-16324-6
  4. Menendez, Albert J.; The Geography of Presidential Elections in the United States, 1868-2004, p. 59 ISBN 0786422173
  5. Stange, Douglas C.; ‘Al Smith and the Republican Party at Prayer: The Lutheran Vote. 1928’, The Review of Politics, Vol. 32, No. 3 (July 1970), pp. 347-364
  6. Okrent, David; Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, p. 309 ISBN 9781464023255
  7. ‘Reports Progressive Swing to Smith: P.M. Hanson, North Dakota Editor, Says Hoover Will Lose by Vote in That State’; New York Times, September 15, 1928, p. 3
  8. Gableman, Edwin W.; ‘Gov. Maddock Helps Smith in North Dakota: Nonpartisan Leaguers Are Strong for Governor, He Declares’; The Washington Post, September 27, 1928, p. 1
  9. ‘North Dakota Wets Big Asset to Smith: State Now Apparently in Line for New York Governor; Hoover Whisper Target. Silence Is Hurting Him’; The Washington Post, October 1, 1928, p. 3
  10. Oulahan, Richard V.; ‘Hoover Hope Rises in North Dakota: Lessening of His Unpopularity With Farmers Dispels Backers' Gloom of Two Weeks Ago’; New York Times, October 12, 1928, p. 19
  11. "David Leip's Election Atlas statistics for 1920". Dave Leip’s U.S. Election Atlas.
  12. Menendez; Geography of Presidential Elections in the United States, pp. 271-273
  13. "1928 Presidential General Election Results – North Dakota". Dave Leip’s U.S. Election Atlas. Retrieved 23 December 2013.
  14. "ND US President Race, November 06, 1928". Our Campaigns.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.