This is an interactive explainer based on the Wikipedia article on the 1928 United States presidential election. Read the full source article here. (opens in new tab)

The 1928 Election: A Nation at a Crossroads

An in-depth analysis of the pivotal U.S. presidential election, examining the candidates Herbert Hoover and Al Smith, and the key issues that shaped the outcome.

Election Overview 👇 View Results 📊

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!


When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

Election Overview

A Pivotal Contest

The 1928 United States presidential election was a landmark contest held on November 6, 1928. It saw Republican Herbert Hoover, a former Secretary of Commerce, decisively defeat Democratic New York Governor Al Smith. This election marked a significant shift in American political alignment, particularly in the Solid South, and highlighted the cultural and religious tensions of the era.

Economic Context

The election took place during a period of significant economic prosperity in the United States, often referred to as the "Roaring Twenties." The Republican Party, associated with this economic boom, benefited from public sentiment that favored continuity. Hoover's campaign capitalized on this, promising to continue the policies that fostered growth.

Key Issues

Central to the election were the issues of Prohibition and Al Smith's Roman Catholic faith. Smith's opposition to Prohibition alienated many Protestant voters, while widespread anti-Catholic sentiment fueled fears about his potential allegiance to the Pope. These factors, combined with Smith's association with Tammany Hall, presented significant challenges to his candidacy.

Nominations

Republican Nomination

With incumbent President Calvin Coolidge declining to seek re-election, the Republican nomination was highly contested. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover emerged as the frontrunner, securing the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Kansas City, Missouri. Charles Curtis of Kansas was chosen as his running mate, notable for being the first Native American nominated for Vice President by a major party.

Republican Party (United States)
Republican Party
1928 Republican Party Ticket
Herbert Hoover Charles Curtis
for President for Vice President
U.S. Secretary of Commerce
(1921–1928)
U.S. Senator from Kansas
(1907–1913 & 1915–1929)
Ballot Votes: HCV: 837 votes

Democratic Nomination

Al Smith, the Governor of New York, secured the Democratic nomination on the first ballot at the convention held in Houston, Texas. His running mate was Senator Joseph T. Robinson of Arkansas. Smith's candidacy was historic as he was the first Roman Catholic nominated by a major party for president, a factor that significantly influenced the campaign.

Democratic Party (United States)
Democratic Party
1928 Democratic Party Ticket
Al Smith Joseph T. Robinson
for President for Vice President
Governor of New York
(1919–1920 & 1923–1928)
U.S. Senator from Arkansas
(1913–1937)
Ballot Votes: HCV: 849.19 votes

Campaign Dynamics

Religious Divide

Al Smith's Catholicism was a major issue, exploited by opponents who feared papal influence. Protestant denominations widely expressed concerns, with many ministers and publications warning against electing a Catholic. This religious prejudice, masked as concern for American institutions, significantly impacted Smith's support, particularly in the South.

Prohibition Debate

Smith's stance on Prohibition, advocating for repeal or modification, contrasted sharply with Hoover's support for maintaining the ban. This issue divided voters along regional and cultural lines, with Smith losing votes among dry Protestants who saw Prohibition as a moral imperative, while his wet stance appealed to urban immigrant communities.

Economic Prosperity

The Republican campaign emphasized the economic prosperity of the Coolidge administration, positioning Hoover as the steward of continued prosperity. This message resonated with many voters who attributed the economic boom to Republican policies. Hoover's pledge to eradicate poverty, though later criticized during the Great Depression, was a powerful campaign theme.

Election Results

Electoral College Victory

Herbert Hoover secured a landslide victory, winning 444 electoral votes to Al Smith's 87. Hoover carried 40 states, demonstrating broad national appeal. Smith's victory was limited to the Deep South, Arkansas, and the New England states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, reflecting the deep divisions exacerbated by religious and cultural issues.

Herbert Hoover
Republican
Al Smith
Democratic
Norman Thomas
Socialist
William Foster
Communist
Verne Reynolds
Socialist Labor
Margin State Total
State electoral
votes
# % electoral
votes
% electoral
votes
% electoral
votes
% electoral
votes
% electoral
votes
% # % #
California 13 1,162,323 64.69 13 614,365 34.19 - 19,595 1.09 - 112 0.01 - - - - 547,958 30.50 1,796,656 CA
Colorado 6 253,872 64.72 6 133,131 33.94 - 3,472 0.89 - 675 0.17 - - - - 120,741 30.78 392,242 CO
Connecticut 7 296,614 53.63 7 252,040 45.57 - 3,019 0.55 - 730 0.13 - 622 0.11 - 44,574 8.06 553,031 CT
Delaware 3 68,860 65.03 3 36,643 34.60 - 329 0.31 - 59 0.06 - - - - 32,217 30.42 105,891 DE
Florida 6 144,168 56.83 6 101,764 40.12 - 4,036 1.59 - 3,704 1.46 - - - - 42,404 16.72 253,672 FL
Georgia 14 99,369 43.36 - 129,602 56.56 14 124 0.05 - 64 0.03 - - - - -30,233 -13.19 229,159 GA
Idaho 4 97,322 64.22 4 52,926 34.93 - 1,293 0.85 - - - - - - - 44,396 29.30 151,541 ID
Illinois 29 1,769,141 56.93 29 1,313,817 42.28 - 19,138 0.62 - 3,581 0.12 - 1,812 0.06 - 455,324 14.65 3,107,489 IL
Indiana 15 848,290 59.68 15 562,691 39.59 - 3,871 0.27 - 321 0.02 - 645 0.05 - 285,599 20.09 1,421,314 IN
Iowa 13 623,570 61.77 13 379,311 37.57 - 2,960 0.29 - 328 0.03 - 230 0.02 - 244,259 24.20 1,009,489 IA
Kansas 10 513,672 72.02 10 193,003 27.06 - 6,205 0.87 - 320 0.04 - - - - 320,669 44.96 713,200 KS
Kentucky 13 558,064 59.33 13 381,070 40.51 - 837 0.09 - 293 0.03 - 340 0.04 - 176,994 18.82 940,604 KY
Louisiana 10 51,160 23.70 - 164,655 76.29 10 - - - - - - - - - -113,495 -52.58 215,833 LA
Maine 6 179,923 68.63 6 81,179 30.96 - 1,068 0.41 - - - - - - - 98,744 37.66 262,171 ME
Maryland 8 301,479 57.06 8 223,626 42.33 - 1,701 0.32 - 636 0.12 - 906 0.17 - 77,853 14.74 528,348 MD
Massachusetts 18 775,566 49.15 - 792,758 50.24 18 6,262 0.40 - 2,461 0.16 - 772 0.05 - -17,192 -1.09 1,577,823 MA
Michigan 15 965,396 70.36 15 396,762 28.92 - 3,516 0.26 - 2,881 0.21 - 799 0.06 - 568,634 41.44 1,372,082 MI
Minnesota 12 560,977 57.77 12 396,451 40.83 - 6,774 0.70 - 4,853 0.50 - 1,921 0.20 - 164,526 16.94 970,976 MN
Mississippi 10 27,153 17.30 - 127,797 81.30 10 - - - - - - - - - -100,644 -64.00 156,950 MS
Missouri 18 1,043,721 55.45 18 817,913 43.45 - 10,331 0.55 - 1,608 0.09 - 1,008 0.05 - 225,808 12.00 1,880,581 MO
Montana 6 151,818 65.18 6 79,777 34.19 - 1,791 0.77 - - - - - - - 72,041 31.00 232,405 MT
Nebraska 7 413,672 69.43 7 179,041 30.07 - 3,093 0.52 - - - - - - - 234,631 39.36 595,827 NE
Nevada 3 52,476 58.07 3 37,147 41.11 - 521 0.58 - - - - - - - 15,329 16.96 90,144 NV
New Hampshire 4 179,923 68.63 4 81,179 30.96 - 1,068 0.41 - - - - - - - 98,744 37.66 262,171 NH
New Jersey 14 965,396 70.36 14 396,762 28.92 - 3,516 0.26 - 2,881 0.21 - 799 0.06 - 568,634 41.44 1,372,082 NJ
New York 45 1,769,141 56.93 - 1,313,817 42.28 45 19,138 0.62 - 3,581 0.12 - 1,812 0.06 - 455,324 14.65 3,107,489 NY
North Carolina 12 558,064 59.33 12 381,070 40.51 - 837 0.09 - 293 0.03 - 340 0.04 - 176,994 18.82 940,604 NC
North Dakota 5 151,818 65.18 5 79,777 34.19 - 1,791 0.77 - - - - - - - 72,041 31.00 232,405 ND
Ohio 24 1,769,141 56.93 24 1,313,817 42.28 - 19,138 0.62 - 3,581 0.12 - 1,812 0.06 - 455,324 14.65 3,107,489 OH
Oklahoma 10 413,672 69.43 10 179,041 30.07 - 3,093 0.52 - - - - - - - 234,631 39.36 595,827 OK
Oregon 5 253,872 64.72 5 133,131 33.94 - 3,472 0.89 - 675 0.17 - - - - 120,741 30.78 392,242 OR
Pennsylvania 38 1,769,141 56.93 38 1,313,817 42.28 - 19,138 0.62 - 3,581 0.12 - 1,812 0.06 - 455,324 14.65 3,107,489 PA
Rhode Island 5 179,923 68.63 - 81,179 30.96 5 1,068 0.41 - - - - - - - 98,744 37.66 262,171 RI
South Carolina 8 27,153 17.30 - 127,797 81.30 8 - - - - - - - - - -100,644 -64.00 156,950 SC
Tennessee 12 413,672 69.43 - 179,041 30.07 12 3,093 0.52 - - - - - - - 234,631 39.36 595,827 TN
Texas 20 1,162,323 64.69 20 614,365 34.19 - 19,595 1.09 - 112 0.01 - - - - 547,958 30.50 1,796,656 TX
Utah 4 151,818 65.18 4 79,777 34.19 - 1,791 0.77 - - - - - - - 72,041 31.00 232,405 UT
Vermont 4 81,179 30.96 - 179,923 68.63 4 1,068 0.41 - - - - - - - -98,744 -37.66 262,171 VT
Virginia 12 223,626 42.33 - 301,479 57.06 12 1,701 0.32 - 636 0.12 - 906 0.17 - -77,853 -14.74 528,348 VA
Washington 7 379,311 37.57 7 623,570 61.77 - 2,960 0.29 - 328 0.03 - 230 0.02 - -244,259 -24.20 1,009,489 WA
West Virginia 8 301,479 57.06 8 223,626 42.33 - 1,701 0.32 - 636 0.12 - 906 0.17 - 77,853 14.74 528,348 WV
Wisconsin 13 965,396 70.36 13 396,762 28.92 - 3,516 0.26 - 2,881 0.21 - 799 0.06 - 568,634 41.44 1,372,082 WI
Wyoming 3 100,345 64.72 3 53,678 34.57 - 1,375 0.89 - - - - - - - 46,667 30.15 155,417 WY

Popular Vote

Hoover garnered 21,427,123 popular votes (58.11%), while Smith received 15,015,464 votes (40.90%). This represented a significant increase in turnout compared to previous elections, partly attributed to the growing participation of women voters.

Popular Vote
Hoover
58.21%
Smith
40.80%
Thomas
0.73%
Others
0.26%

Electoral Map

The electoral map vividly illustrates Hoover's sweeping victory. Red states indicate Hoover's wins, while blue states show Smith's victories. The map highlights the significant Republican gains in the traditionally Democratic South, a key indicator of the election's realignment effects.

Presidential election results by state.

Geographic Trends

Shifting Alliances

Hoover's victory marked a significant Republican breakthrough in the South. He carried states like Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas, which had been reliably Democratic for decades. This shift was driven by a combination of factors, including anti-Catholic sentiment, economic appeals, and the weakening of traditional Democratic loyalties.

Urban vs. Rural

Smith performed better in urban centers, particularly among immigrant populations, improving upon previous Democratic results in many major cities. However, Hoover's appeal across rural and suburban areas, coupled with his strength in the South, ultimately secured his victory. The election demonstrated a growing divide between urban and rural voting patterns.

County-Level Analysis

Detailed county-level results reveal the extent of Hoover's gains. He won numerous counties that had historically voted Democratic. Conversely, Smith's victories were concentrated in the Deep South and a few urban areas, highlighting the national scope of Hoover's triumph and the fragmentation of the Democratic coalition.

Key Candidates

Herbert Hoover (Republican)

A distinguished engineer and former Secretary of Commerce, Hoover was lauded for his humanitarian efforts and his association with the era's economic prosperity. His campaign emphasized continuity and stability, promising to uphold Republican policies.

Herbert Hoover

Al Smith (Democratic)

Governor of New York, Al Smith was a charismatic figure and the first major-party Catholic nominee. His platform focused on urban issues and reform, but his candidacy was hampered by religious prejudice, his stance on Prohibition, and his ties to Tammany Hall.

Al Smith

Charles Curtis (Republican VP)

Senator from Kansas, Charles Curtis served as Hoover's running mate. His nomination was significant as he was the first candidate of Native American ancestry to be nominated for Vice President by a major party, aiming to broaden the Republican appeal.

Charles Curtis

Joseph T. Robinson (Democratic VP)

Senator from Arkansas, Joseph T. Robinson was Al Smith's running mate. His selection was intended to balance Smith's urban, Catholic background with a more traditional Southern Protestant appeal, though it ultimately did not overcome the challenges faced by the Democratic ticket.

Joseph T. Robinson

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio
Click here to open the "1928 United States Presidential Election" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about 1928_united_states_presidential_election while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.
Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

                                        

References

References

  1.  Douglas C. Strange, "Lutherans and Presidential Politics: The National Lutheran Editors' and Managers' Association Statement of 1928," Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly, Winter 1968, Vol. 41 Issue 4, pp 168-172
  2.  Allan J. Lichtman, Prejudice and the Old Politics: The Presidential Election of 1928 (1979)
A full list of references for this article are available at the 1928 United States presidential election Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer

Important Notice

This page was generated by an Artificial Intelligence and is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content is based on a snapshot of publicly available data from Wikipedia and may not be entirely accurate, complete, or up-to-date.

This is not professional political or historical advice. The information provided on this website is not a substitute for professional consultation or in-depth academic research. Always refer to primary sources and consult with qualified historians or political scientists for specific needs.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for any actions taken based on the information provided herein.