Skip to main content

The 83rd Congress is interesting for a few reasons.  It was one of just two Republican Congresses of the post-FDR, pre-1994 period.  It's also the first Congress that I have Presidential results for, thanks to demographicarmageddon telling me about Congressional District Data Book for the 87th Congress, and to David Nir for sending me a copy.  I had to copy them manually, so I can't promise there aren't any typos on my part, although I did double-check.

Let's look at the basics of what knowing how the Democratic Presidential candidate did in each Congressional district can tell us about both today and then.

(This is adapted from a post at my new site, Xenocrypt's Site.  Bigger charts there.)

You can see a spreadsheet with the Presidential results, and with the representative and party for the 83rd Congress, here.  If you want to double-check my typing, you can download the data book itself here.

Below, I have a scatterplot of the 83rd House of Representatives.  The x- and y- axes give Adlai Stevenson's two-party vote share in each district.  The districts are colored by party in the usual way.  (You probably can't see it, but there was one independent--Henry Reams of OH-09.  That's colored green.)

Let's zoom in to the range roughly corresponding to Stevenson getting within 10 points of his national percentage:

To compare: below is a scatterplot of the current (113th) House of Representatives, although I've only included those districts where DKE had 2012 Presidential results at the time I was writing this post.  The x- and y- axes give Barack Obama's two-party vote share in each district, and again, the districts are colored by party.

And here's a similar zoom-in (now on the other axis--for the 83rd Congress, the 1956 elections were in the future; for the 113th Congress, the 2008 elections are in the past):

Broadly, the charts tell similar stories.  In 1952 or in 2012, Democratic-leaning districts (districts on the right/top) mostly elected Democrats.  Republican-leaning districts mostly elected Republicans.  And in both 1952 and in 2012, this is still true if you only consider (relatively) marginal districts and ignore the most strongly partisan seats.

But the 2012/2008 scatterplots are simpler than the 1956/1952 scatterplots in (at least) two ways: the successive Presidential election results are far more highly correlated now, and there is now a far stronger relationship between a district's Presidential lean and a district's House representation.

In other words: In 1952, there were many more Democratically-leaning seats electing Republicans, and Republican-leaning seats electing Democrats, than there are today.  We don't have all of the current Presidential results, but there are around 25 such seats now, compared to about 64 seats then.  I'll give more details on this in a little bit.

Relatively marginal districts in 1952 (that is, districts where Stevenson got close to his national percentage) include NY-12 (part of Brooklyn), AZ-02 (Arizona outside of Maricopa County), NY-07 (western Queens, including Astoria), NJ-12 (outer Essex County), and at-large districts in Connecticut, New Mexico, and Washington.  Those descriptions, by the way, are from Kenneth Martis' wonderful Historical Atlas.

A follower of current politics, looking at the 1952 scatterplots, might argue that it shows a Democratic party in flux.  In 1952, Stevenson's best districts were a mix of areas where Democrats still do very well today (NY-16's Harlem, NY-23's Bronx, PA-01's Philadelphia) and "solid South" districts that have turned strongly against the Democratic party.

To see this summed up in a single district: note that Stevenson's highest 1952 percentage was in GA-04, then held by Democrat Albert Camp.  The guy who succeeded Camp, John Flynt, would himself be succeeded by none other than Newt Gingrich.

Not to get ahead of ourselves, but despite this eventual shift, as I think demographicarmageddon pointed out, Stevenson did better in many Southern districts in 1956 than he did in 1952, and especially if you define "better" relative to Stevenson's overall national percentages.  Of course, there were a lot of oddities with the electoral system of the time--I think some Southern states voted for "slates of electors", rather than voting directly for Presidential candidates.  Note Stevenson's dramatic drop in NY-16 from 1952 to 1956.  This was Adam Clayton Powell's Harlem district, and, according to Wiki, Ike was winning "the support of nearly 40% of black voters" thanks to Brown.  (And, presumably, also thanks to whatever it was that made everyone else vote for him.)

Back to 1952: You can also see that both scatterplots have most of the red districts to the left of most of the blue districts.  The concept of PVI--which says that the Presidential vote of a district relative to the national Presidential vote should predict how it does in other elections--worked pretty well in 1952, although not nearly as well as it works today.  While there was quite a bit of split-ticket voting, we aren't at the point, yet, where Southern states were voting en masse for Republican Presidential candidates and for Democratic House candidates.  

Stevenson got about 44.5% of the national vote.  Of the 204 districts where Stevenson did at least that well, Republicans only elected Representatives to 27 of them.  (Democrats and independent Henry Reams won the rest.)  And, as the scatterplot suggests, they mostly won the districts with the smallest Democratic lean.

Taking an idea from David Nir, let's just look at Republican-held seats.

 

The 12 (why not?) most Democratic districts to elect a Republican Representative were:

  1. NY-21, Jacob Javits, 62.3% Stevenson.
  2. PA-22, John Saylor, 50.9%.
  3. NJ-01, Charles Wolverton, 50.9%.
  4. CA-12, Allan Hunter, 50.4%.
  5. OH-14, William Ayres, 49.5%.
  6. WA-06, Thor Tollefson, 49.0%.
  7. PA-25, Louis Graham, 48.2%.
  8. PA-06, Hugh Scott Jr., 48.1%.
  9. DE-AL, Herbert Warburton, 48.1%.
  10. NE-04, Arthur Miller, 47.8%.
  11. VA-09, William Wampler, 46.9%.
  12. WA-01, Thomas Pelly, 46.9%.

(Side note: NE-04 is almost certainly a typo from when the book was written.  No way Stevenson almost won a district in rural Nebraska.)

Then as now, Republicans seemed to mostly win rather marginally Democratic districts, except in extreme circumstances.  Jacob Javits was perhaps "the most liberal Republican to serve in either chamber of Congress between 1937 and 2002".  Incidentally, while Javits' district is sometimes described as an "Upper West Side" district (in his Wiki, for example), Martis gives Javits' NY-21 as running from north of 110th Street all the way to the Harlem river, both in 1947 (when Javits was initially elected) and into the 83rd Congress.  In other words, he was elected from Morningside Heights, Harlem, and Inwood, not the Upper West Side as we know it today.  (Of course, those neighborhoods probably weren't as we think of them today, either.)

Anyway, of the 231 districts where Stevenson did worse than he did nationally, Democrats only simultaneously elected Representatives to 37.  (That's counting the two Democrats from New Mexico's at-large district.)

Democrats also picked up two more "red" seats in special elections during the 83rd Congress: NJ-06, after Republican incumbent Clifford Case resigned during his Senate campaign, and WI-09, after Republican incumbent Merlin Hull died in office.

The 12 most Republican districts to elect a Democratic Representative were:

  1. KS-01, Howard Miller, 28.7% Stevenson.
  2. MA-03, Philip Philbin, 32.2%.
  3. FL-06, Dwight Rogers, 34.5%.
  4. VA-07, Burr Harrison, 35.6%.
  5. CO-04, Wayne Aspinall, 36.0%.
  6. SC-01, Lucius Rivers, 36.3%.
  7. TX-05, Joseph Wilson, 37.0%.
  8. FL-05, Albert Herlong Jr., 37.0%.
  9. OH-15, Robert Secrest, 37.7%.
  10. FL-01, Courtney Campbell, 38.1%.
  11. MN-06, Fred Marshall, 38.2%.
  12. TX-21, Ovie Fisher, 38.4%.

Note that these aren't all Southern seats.  Interestingly (and this is something else demographicarmageddon pointed out), some of the most conservative areas of the South were urban districts that are, today, some of the most liberal areas of the South.  For example, FL-01 was the Tampa area at the time, while TX-05 was coterminous with Dallas County.  The Richmond-area VA-03 only gave Stevenson about 40% of the vote, even while it elected a Democrat, J. Vaughan Gary.  (Incidentally, if you follow the people who succeeded Gary, you eventually come to Eric Cantor, the current Republican Majority leader.)

One question is: what was the relationship between how Adlai Stevenson did in a district and how the district's Representative voted?  That will probably be the subject of my next post.

Note: Aside from the Data Book, I got the names and parties of the Representatives from GovTrack and OurCampaigns.  I also used the ggplot2 package in R, and benefited from various pieces of advice about R, such as on Stack Overflow.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (14+ / 0-)

    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

    by Xenocrypt on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 11:24:27 AM PST

  •  We've been going through... (0+ / 0-)

    Demographic realignment for some time, and it definitely shows in the changing political geography. It's perhaps even more accentuated by the 2011 gerrymanders.

  •  what non-confederate seats did Stevenson win (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xenocrypt

    Here's my guess
    Massachusetts 11&12
    New Jersey 1
    New York 10, 11, 14, 16, 18-24
    Pennsylvania 1-5, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30
    West Virginia 5
    Rhode Island 1
    Kentucky 1 and 7
    Ohio 21
    Indiana 1
    Michigan 1, 13, 15, 16
    Illinois 1, 2, 5-8
    Missouri 1, 3, 5, 10
    Oklahoma 3
    California 3, 5, 6, 12, 19, 23, 26
    Maryland 3, 4, 7

    RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

    by demographicarmageddon on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 02:08:04 PM PST

    •  First, thanks for all your help. (0+ / 0-)

      And knowledge.  Very useful for this project, as I said in the diary/post itself.

      Anyway, I count about 70 non-confederate Stevenson districts.  A few too many to post in a comment.  But later I'll try to tell you any big misses you made.

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14). Also at [http://xenocrypt.blogspot.com Xenocrypt's Site].

      by Xenocrypt on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 02:29:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  i think its interesting to see the 56-60 swings (0+ / 0-)

    in the districts where its available. The TX 18, OK 6, TX 19 and MO 10 seem to have abhorred the idea of voting for a catholic while WI 8 probably had a lot of people voting for Kennedy because he was catholic

    RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

    by demographicarmageddon on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 02:45:55 PM PST

    •  Unfortunately, the data book seems to (0+ / 0-)

      only have those for districts that didn't split counties.  (Which are the districts you need it the least for.)

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14). Also at [http://xenocrypt.blogspot.com Xenocrypt's Site].

      by Xenocrypt on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 02:58:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nebraska (0+ / 0-)

    It is a typo  - Miller was a Republican.  He was succeeded in that district by a Democrat, though.  The district was also in eastern Nerbraska, which is definitely less Republican than western NE.

    You're an odd fellow, but you do make a good steamed ham.

    by Samara Morgan Dem on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 03:29:25 PM PST

  •  Blacks could not vote in most of the south. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xenocrypt

    just saying.

    WE must hang together or we will all hang separately. B.Franklin

    by ruthhmiller on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 03:34:41 PM PST

    •  There's actually something I'm wondering there. (0+ / 0-)

      One of Stevenson's top districts was NC-02, which was the "black second", and as Wiki said it had the highest African-American population in the state.  It kind of stands out, and so I'm wondering if it's a coincidence or if they were more concerned with keeping African-Americans out of the (all-important) Democratic primary than out of the (usually perfunctory) general elections.

      On the other hand, Stevenson didn't have the kind of drop in NC-02 that he had in NY-16, so maybe it is just a coincidence.

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14). Also at [http://xenocrypt.blogspot.com Xenocrypt's Site].

      by Xenocrypt on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 05:27:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stevenson in 1956 made a definite decision... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xenocrypt

    To be relatively "moderate" on civil rights, in an effort to win back the southern white Eisenhower Democrats of 1952. (Governor Harriman of New York, in his own short-lived bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, criticized him for this.)  In one speech he said "You do not upset the habits and traditions that are older than the Republic overnight."
    http://books.google.com/...

    So it's not surprising that he did relatively well (compared to 1952) among white southerners and relatively poorly among African Americans.

    Also, in considering Eisenhower's relatively strong showing in Harlem (NY-16) one should note that Harlem's Congressman Adam Clayton Powell endorsed Ike for the presidency and liberal Republican--they really did exist in those days!--Jacob Javits for the Senate.  (As revenge, Carmine De Sapio's Tammany organization tried to purge Powell in 1958, which just made Powell even more popular among Harlemites, who saw his opponent Earl Brown as an "Uncle Tom" or "a Negro on De Sapio's plantation."  Brown went down to an overwhelming defeat.)

    •  Fascinating. (0+ / 0-)

      Tweeted about it and everything.

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14). Also at [http://xenocrypt.blogspot.com Xenocrypt's Site].

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 10:58:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Javits' liberalism (0+ / 0-)

      (and what issues it applied to) will be a big part of my likely next post on roll call voting in the 1952 Congress.

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14). Also at [http://xenocrypt.blogspot.com Xenocrypt's Site].

      by Xenocrypt on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 10:59:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  not that anyone would want an endorsement from ACP (0+ / 0-)

      wasn't he sort of like Pete Stark?

      RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

      by demographicarmageddon on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 10:26:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It wasn't until the 1960's... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Xenocrypt

        That Powell's behavior made him almost universally reviled among whites and an embarrassment even to some African Americans.  In 1956 he was still very popular among blacks, especially in Harlem, and there is no doubt that his support helped Ike there.

    •  Remarkably (0+ / 0-)

      The very page you linked to contains Stevenson's famous quote about "Nixonland" (a phrase which of course lent itself as the title to Rick Perlstein's extraordinary book):

      Our nation stands at a fork in the political road. In one direction lies a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland. But I say to you that it is not America.

      Get the Daily Kos Elections Digest in your inbox every weekday. Sign up here.

      by David Nir on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 09:04:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is great work! (0+ / 0-)

    Could you do some charts for 1960 too, if that's possible?  

    •  Not sure if it's available to the same extent. (0+ / 0-)

      But I'm not nearly done with these districts.

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14). Also at http://xenocrypt.blogspot.com.

      by Xenocrypt on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 07:59:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site