Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Socialist Support In US History

Recommended Posts

I got bored so I decided to see which states supported Socialist & Labor Candidates with at least 5% of the Vote. I include Bernie Sanders for 2016, including states that supported Bernie Sanders with at least 1/3 of the Democratic vote in those primaries. Bernie Sanders won 7% of the General Election vote for Vermont in 2016, making him the first Socialist/Labor politician to win at least 5% of the vote in a state since 1936. Traditional Socialist-friendly states primarily voted for Sanders in 2016. That is, primarily West of the Mississippi and in the Midwest, with some support in TX and FL. This has been historically the case, as the East Coast, while Liberal or Progressive, has generally had it adapted to their state establishment parties.

1912 was the high tide of the Socialist and Labor parties. These parties were weakened by several events: 1) The Roaring Twenties & the rise of La Follette's Progressive Party ; 2) FDR creating the New Deal; 3) The Cold War which led to Propaganda inaccurately equating these movement with Communism

Socialist & Labor (at least 5%)
 
1884 - TX (8%), AR (7%)
 
1892 - [None, as most voted Populist]
 
1896 - [None as most voted for WJ Bryan-Democrat]
 
1900 - [None, as most voted for WJ Bryan-Democrat]
 
1904 - CA (9%), MT (9%), OR (8%), OR (8%), NV (7%), ID (7%), IL (7%), WI (6%), FL (6%), UT (6%), KS (5%)
 
1908 - NV (9%), OK (9%), MT (9%), WA (8%), FL (8%), CA (7%),  OR (7%), ID (7%), WI (6%), WY (5%), UT (5%)
 
1912 - NV (16%), OK (16%), MT (14%), WA (14%), AZ (13%), CA (12%), ID (11%), OR (10%), FL (9%), OH (9%), TX (8%), WI (8%), MN (8%), ND (8%), UT (8%), KS (7%), IL (7%), PA (7%), LA (7%), WY (7%), AR (7%), CO (6%), NM (6%), WV (6%), IN (6%), CT (5%)
 
1916 - OK (16%), NV (9%), FL (7%), WI (6%), ID (6%), WA (6%), AZ (5%), MT (5%), MN (5%), TX (5%), ND (5%)
 
1920 -  MN (8%), NY (7%), NV (7%), CA (7%), OK (5%), OR (5%)
 
1924 - [None, most voted for La Follette-Progressive]
 
1928 - [None, most probably voted for Smith-Democrat]
 
1932 - WI (5%)
 
1936 - ND (13%), MN (7%), MA (6%), RI (6%), OR (5%), WI (5%), OH (5%)
 
1940 - [None, most voted for FDR-Democrat]
 
1944 - [None, most voted for FDR-Democrat]
 
1948 - [None, most probably voted for Wallace-Progressive]
 
1952 through 2012 -  [None, Cold War and Democrats embracing New Deal-style programs virtually destroyed Socialist and Labor Parties]
 
2016 - VT (7%); Democratic Primaries for Sanders with at least 33% -- VT (86%), AK (80%), UT (79%), ID (78%), WA (73%), HI (70%), KS (68%), ME (64%), ND (64%), MN (62%), NH (60%), CO (59%), NE (57%), WI (57%), OR (56%), WY (56%), RI (55%), IN (53%), OK (52%), MT (52%), WV (51%), MI (50%), IA (50%), MO (49%), SD (49%), IL (49%), NM (49%), MA (48%), WA (48%), NV (47%), NE (47%), CT (46%), KY (46%), CA (46%), PA (44%), OH (43%), NY (42%), AZ (41%), NC (41%), DE (39%), NJ (37%), VA (35%), MD (34%), FL (33%), TX (33%), TN (33%)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several factors played into the socialist party failure to become a major party, but one that should be highlighted- and often overlooked (maybe from an American perspective)- is their refusial to approve of the US involvement in WW1. Being the only socialist/labor party to condemn the war. France's SFIO, and UKs Labour Party abandoned their antimilitarist views when war broke; and arguably gained legitimacy in the eyes of the voters. But ironically, the US Socialist Party, by sticking to their ideology, allowed them to lose favor in the eyes of the American populis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Several factors played into the socialist party failure to become a major party, but one that should be highlighted- and often overlooked (maybe from an American perspective)- is their refusial to approve of the US involvement in WW1. Being the only socialist/labor party to condemn the war. France's SFIO, and UKs Labour Party abandoned their antimilitarist views when war broke; and arguably gained legitimacy in the eyes of the voters. But ironically, the US Socialist Party, by sticking to their ideology, allowed them to lose favor in the eyes of the American populis. 

Conversely, Vladimir Lenin signed the humiliating Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on behalf of Russia (which he hadn't yet even secured total control of yet by that point) and took Russia out of WW1, conceding military defeat to the Central Powers, just as an interesting counter-point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Patine said:

Conversely, Vladimir Lenin signed the humiliating Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on behalf of Russia (which he hadn't yet even secured total control of yet by that point) and took Russia out of WW1, conceding military defeat to the Central Powers, just as an interesting counter-point.

Let me preface this response by saying I'm not an expert on the Soviet Union, but a bit more knowledgeable on the socialist movements in the US. 

First, excellent counterpoint. 

Second, by no means am I trying to say that only opposing a war caused their downfall. If that were the case, isolationist Republicans should've faced a down fall as well, but they did not. But wanted to highlight the difference between the US and western Europe when it came to the difficult question: do we stick to our ideology and risk losing legitimacy, or do we compromise it in hopes of being able to change the government? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×