Ethnocultural politics in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ethnocultural politics in the United States (or ethnoreligious politics) refers to the pattern of certain cultural or religious groups to vote heavily for one party. Groups can be based on ethnicity (such as Hispanics, Irish, Germans), race (Whites, Blacks, Asian Americans) or religion (Protestant [and later, Evangelical] or Catholic) or on overlapping categories (Irish Catholics). In the South, race was the determining factor. Each of the two major parties was a coalition of ethnoreligious groups in the Second Party System (1830s to 1850s) as well as the Third Party System (1850s to 1890s).

Second Great Awakening: 1800–1850[edit]

The Protestant religious revivals of the early 19th century had a profound impact on shaping the moral values of the affected voters, pushing them into moralistic political programs, such as opposition to slavery and calling for prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Revivals and perfectionist hopes of improving individuals and society continued to increase from 1840 to 1865 across all major denominations, especially in urban areas. Evangelists often directly addressed issues such as slavery, greed, and poverty, laying the groundwork for later reform movements.[1] Although the women could not vote or hold office, they could influence the political viewpoints of their menfolk.[2] In the midst of shifts in theology and church polity, American Christians began progressive movements to reform society during this period. Known commonly as antebellum reform, the phenomenon included reforms in temperance, women's rights, abolitionism, and a multitude of other questions faced by society.[3]

The religious enthusiasm of the Second Great Awakening was echoed by the new political enthusiasm of the Second Party System.[4] More active participation in politics by more segments of the population brought religious and moral issues into the political sphere. The spirit of evangelical humanitarian reforms was carried on in the antebellum Whig party.[5][6]

Historians stress the understanding common among participants of reform as being a part of God's plan. As a result, local churches saw their roles in society in purifying the world through the individuals to whom they could bring salvation and through changes in the law and the creation of institutions. Interest in transforming the world was applied to mainstream political action, as temperance activists, antislavery advocates, and proponents of other variations of reform sought to implement their beliefs into national politics. While Protestant religion had previously played an important role on the American political scene, the Second Great Awakening strengthened the role that it would play.[7]


Politics in the Midwest was deeply rooted in ethnocultural divisions from the 1830s to the 20th century.[8] Yankee settlers from New England started arriving in Ohio before 1800 and spread throughout the northern half of the Midwest. Most of them started as farmers, but the larger proportion later moved to towns and cities as entrepreneurs, businessmen, and urban professionals. Since its beginnings in the 1830s, Chicago business was under Yankee control from the 1830s, and the railroad and financial metropolis quickly came to dominate the Midwestern economy.[9][10] However, city politics was under the control of complex ethnic coalitions in both parties. Finally, in the 1930s, the Irish took control of the Democratic Party and the city government.[11]

The historian John Buenker has examined the worldview of the Yankee settlers in the Midwest:

Because they arrived first and had a strong sense of community and mission, Yankees were able to transplant New England institutions, values, and mores, altered only by the conditions of frontier life. They established a public culture that emphasized the work ethic, the sanctity of private property, individual responsibility, faith in residential and social mobility, practicality, piety, public order and decorum, reverence for public education, activists, honest, and frugal government, town meeting democracy, and he believed that there was a public interest that transcends particular and stick ambitions. Regarding themselves as the elect and just in a world rife with sin, air, and corruption, they felt a strong moral obligation to define and enforce standards of community and personal behavior.... This pietistic worldview was substantially shared by British, Scandinavian, Swiss, English-Canadian and Dutch Reformed immigrants, as well as by German Protestants and many of the Forty-Eighters.[12]

Midwestern politics pitted Yankees against the German Catholics and Lutherans, who were often led by the Irish Catholics. Such large groups, Buenker argues:

Generally subscribed to the work ethic, a strong sense of community, and activist government but were less committed to economic individualism and privatism and ferociously opposed to government supervision of the personal habits. Southern and eastern European immigrants generally leaned more toward the Germanic view of things, while modernization, industrialization, and urbanization modified nearly everyone's sense of individual economic responsibility and put a premium on organization, political involvement, and education.[12]

Third Party System: 1850s–1890s[edit]

Religious lines were sharply drawn.[13] Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially Prohibition. While both parties cut across economic class structures, the Democrats were supported more heavily by its lower tiers.[14]

Cultural issues, especially Prohibition and foreign language schools, became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of personal morality issues. Prohibition debates and referendums heated up politics in most states over a period of decades, as national Prohibition was finally passed in 1919 and repealed in 1933. It served as a major issue between the wet Democrats and the dry Republicans.[13]


German Americans comprised the largest ethnic group in the North, but they were sharply divided along religious lines. Catholics, several groups of Lutherans, Methodists, and other Protestants each formed tight-knit communities. The Catholics and Lutherans operated separate parochial schools. In addition there were secular groups, ranging from the Forty+l-Eighters (liberal refugees from the failed 1848 revolution) to socialists. Relatively few German Americans held office, but the men voted once they became citizens. In general, during the Third Party System (1850s–1890s), the Protestants and Jews leaned toward the Republican Party, and the Catholics were strongly Democratic. When Prohibition was on the ballot, the Germans voted solidly against it since they strongly distrusted moralistic crusaders, whom they called "Puritans," including the temperance reformers and many Populists. The German community strongly opposed Free Silver and voted heavily against the crusader William Jennings Bryan in 1896. In 1900, however, many German Democrats returned to their party and voted for Bryan, perhaps because of President William McKinley's foreign policy.[14] Many Germans in late-19th-century America were socialists, and they were usually affiliated with labor unions. Germans played a significant role in the American labor movement, especially in the brewing and the construction trades.[15]

Voting patterns by religion[edit]

Voting behavior by religion, northern USA, late 19th century
Religion % Dem % GOP
Irish Catholics 80 20
All Catholics 70 30
Confessional German Lutherans 65 35
German Reformed 60 40
French Canadian Catholics 50 50
Less Confessional German Lutherans 45 55
English Canadians 40 60
British stock 35 65
German Sectarians 30 70
Norwegian Lutherans 20 80
Swedish Lutherans 15 85
Haugean Norwegians 5 95
Northern stock
Quakers 5 95
Free Will Baptists 20 80
Congregational 25 75
Methodists 25 75
Regular Baptists 35 65
Blacks 40 60
Presbyterians 40 60
Episcopalians 45 55
Southern stock
Disciples 50 50
Presbyterians 70 30
Baptists 75 25
Methodists 90 10
Source: Kleppner, Paul (1979). The Third Electoral System 1853–1892. p. 182.

Progressive era: 1890–1932[edit]


In most of the country prohibition was of central importance in progressive politics before World War I, with a strong religious and ethnic dimension.[16] Most pietistic Protestants were "dries" who advocated prohibition as a solution to social problems; they included Methodists, Congregationalists, Disciples, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and Scandinavian Lutherans. On the "wet" side, Episcopalians, Irish Catholics, German Lutherans and German Catholics attacked prohibition as a menace to their social customs and personal liberty. Prohibitionists supported direct democracy to enable voters to bypass the state legislature in lawmaking. In the North, the Republican Party championed the interests of the prohibitionists, while the Democratic Party represented ethnic group interests. In the South, the Baptist and Methodist churches played a major role in forcing the Democratic Party to support prohibition. After 1914 the issue shifted to the Germans' opposition to Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy. In the 1920s, however, the sudden, unexpected outburst of big city crime associated with bootlegging undermined support for prohibition, and the Democrats took up the cause for repeal, finally succeeding in 1932.[17][18][19]

World War I[edit]


Many different Protestant denominations, such as the Methodists and Baptists, loudly denounced the war at first: it was God's punishment for sin.[20] Their moralism was aggressively focused on banishing evils (like saloons) from the face of the earth through Prohibition, and if they could be shown that German militarism was a similar evil, they would throw enormous weight. Wilson, the intensely religious son of a prominent theologian, knew exactly how to harness that moralism in his attacks on the "Huns" who threatened civilization, and his calls for an almost religious crusade on behalf of peace.[21] The Episcopalians, with a strong base in the British-American community, generally supported entry into the war. President Woodrow Wilson appeal to the antiwar Protestants by arguing that American entry would make the war to end all wars, and eliminate militarism as a factor in world affairs.


German Americans by 1910 typically had only weak ties to Germany; however, they were fearful of negative treatment they might receive if the United States entered the war (such mistreatment was already happening to German-descent citizens in Canada and Australia). Almost none called for intervening on Germany's side, instead calling for neutrality and speaking of the superiority of German culture. As more nations were drawn into the conflict, however, the English-languages press increasingly supporting Britain, while the German-American media called for neutrality while also defending Germany's position. Chicago's Germans worked to secure a complete embargo on all arms shipments to Europe. In 1916 large crowds in Chicago's Germania celebrated the Kaiser's birthday, something they had not done before the war.[22] German Americans in early 1917 still called for neutrality but proclaimed that if a war came they would be loyal to the United States. By this point they had been excluded almost entirely from national discourse on the subject.[23] Once war started they were harassed in so many ways that historian Carl Wittke noted in 1936, it was "one of the most difficult and humiliating experiences suffered by an ethnic group in American history."[24] German-American Socialists actively campaigned against entry into the war.[25]


The most important ethnocultural issues in politics included the congressional debates over restriction of immigration, the sudden rise (and sudden fall) of the Ku Klux Klan, and the role of Catholicism in the election of 1928.

Immigration restriction[edit]

The United States became more anti-immigration in outlook during this period. The American Immigration Act of 1924 limited immigration from countries where 2% of the total U.S. population, per the 1890 census, were immigrants from that country. Thus, the massive influx of Europeans that had come to America during the first two decades of the century slowed to a trickle. Asians were prohibited from immigrating altogether; that provision angered Japan. Although some businesses opposed restrictions because they wanted a continued flow of unskilled workers, support was widespread with the exception of the Jewish community.[26][27]

Ku Klux Klan[edit]

The KKK was a nationwide organization that grew rapidly from 1921 to 1925 and collapsed just as fast. It had millions of members, but its organizational structure was oriented entirely toward recruiting new members, collecting their initiation fees and selling costumes. After the organizer moved on the local was poorly organized and unfunded and seldom achieved very much. The Klan signed up millions of white Protestant men on the basis that American society needed a moral purification against the immoral power of the Catholic Church, Jews, organized crime, speakeasies, and local adulterers. Liberal and Catholic elements fought against the Klan primarily inside the Democratic Party, where a motion to repudiate it by name was defeated by one vote at the national convention of 1924. KKK membership was secret. Members swore to uphold American values and Christian morality. At the local level, some Protestant ministers became involved, but no Protestant denomination officially endorsed the KKK.[28][29] Across the country, the Klan had strength in cities, towns and rural areas. Its high visibility made its intended targets of Catholics, Jews, and Blacks highly uncomfortable, and many local and state elections were bitterly fought around the role of the Klan.

Historians in recent decades have totally revised the traditional interpretation of the second KKK as a terrorist group or one based on frustrated marginal elements.[30] Using newly-discovered minutes of local chapters, they now portray the Klansmen as ordinary Americans, primarily of middle class. They were local activists and joiners who thought the nation was seriously threatened by an evil conspiracy. Scholars found the Klan of the 1920s was "composed of average citizens drawn from the broader middle-class." It "had been not a form of racial and religious terror but rather a means of mainstream political activism."[31][32] The current KKK is a white supremacist organization.

1928 election[edit]

1928 election was characterized by widespread attention to religious tensions between Catholics and Protestants, as well as the prohibition issue. The nation was peaceful and prosperous, giving enormous strength to Republican nominee Herbert Hoover. The Democratic candidate was New York Governor Al Smith, who was closely identified with Catholicism, New York City, and opposition to prohibition. Smith mobilized Catholic voters, who proved decisive in his success in carrying the large cities. A wide spectrum of Protestants were troubled by the notion that the Catholic Church—especially the pope and bishops—would have a major voice in American politics. Southern Baptists and Lutherans, among other denominations, often focused on religion. Smith lost many traditionally Protestant Democratic areas, especially in the border South. The final factor was New York City, a locale deeply distrusted by many rural Americans for its unsavory reputation regarding organized crime.[33]

Anti-Catholicism was a significant problem for Smith's campaign. Protestant ministers warned that he would take orders from the pope who, many Americans sincerely believed, would move to the United States to rule the country from a fortress in Washington, if Smith won. Beyond the conspiracy theories, a survey of 8,500 Southern Methodist Church ministers found only four who supported Smith, and the northern Methodists, Southern Baptists, and Disciples of Christ were similar in their opposition. Many average voters who sincerely rejected bigotry and the anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan—which had declined during the 1920s until the 1928 campaign revived it—justified their opposition to Smith on their belief that the Catholic Church played too large a role in Smith's political record.[34]

New Deal era: 1932–1966[edit]

Franklin D. Roosevelt led the Democratic Party to a landslide victory in 1932 and set up his New Deal in 1933 and forged a coalition of labor unions, liberals, religious, ethnic and racial minorities (Catholics, Jews and Blacks), Southern whites, poor people and those on relief.[35] The organizational heft was provided by Big City machines, which gained access to millions of relief jobs and billions of dollars in spending projects. These voting blocs together formed a majority of voters and handed the Democratic Party seven victories out of nine presidential elections (1932–1948, 1960, 1964), as well as control of both houses of Congress during all but 4 years between the years 1932–1980 (Republicans won small majorities in 1946 and 1952). The cities were the center of the ethnic voting blocs, and Roosevelt built this coalition around them, as well as the big-city machines, and the labor unions that were associated with the ethnics. In 1936 the nation's 106 cities over 100,000 population voted 70% for FDR, compared to 59% outside the cities. Roosevelt won reelection in 1940 thanks to the cities. In the North, the cities over 100,000 gave Roosevelt 60% of their votes, while the rest of the North favored Wendell Willkie by 52%. It was just enough to provide the critical electoral college margin.[36]

The European ethnic groups came of age after the 1960s. Ronald Reagan pulled many of the working class social conservatives into the Republican party as Reagan Democrats. Many middle class ethnics saw the Democratic Party as a working class party and preferred the GOP as the upper-middle class party. However, the Jewish community still voted en masse for the Democratic party, and in the 2004 presidential election 74% voted for Democratic candidate John Kerry, in the 2008 election 78% voted for President Barack Obama, and in the 2012 election 69% voted for President Obama.[37] In the 2018 midterms, over 75% of Jews voted for Democrats.[38]

African Americans grew stronger in their Democratic loyalties and in their numbers. By the 1960s, they were a much more important part of the coalition than in the 1930s. Their Democratic loyalties cut across all income and geographic lines to form the single most unified bloc of voters in the country.[39]

Present day[edit]

In the present-day, progressive Christians (often found in denominations such as the United Church of Christ or the Protestant Episcopal Church) tend to vote for the Democratic Party (cf. Christian left), while those aligned with the Christian right tend to vote for the Republican Party.[40]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War (1957)
  2. ^ Barbara Leslie Epstein, The Politics of Domesticity (1981).
  3. ^ Alice Felt Tyler, Freedom's Ferment: Phases of American Social History from the Colonial Period to the Outbreak of the Civil War (1944)
  4. ^ Stephen Meardon, "From Religious Revivals to Tariff Rancor: Preaching Free Trade and Protection during the Second American Party System," History of Political Economy, Winter 2008 Supplement, Vol. 40, pp 265-298
  5. ^ Daniel Walker Howe, "The Evangelical Movement and Political Culture in the North During the Second Party System," Journal of American History (1991) 77#4 pp: 1216-1239.
  6. ^ Daniel Walker Howe, What hath God wrought: the transformation of America, 1815-1848 (2007).
  7. ^ Richard Carwardine, Evangelicals and politics in antebellum America (1993).
  8. ^ Jon Gjerde, Jon, The Minds of the West: Ethnocultural Evolution in the Rural Middle West, 1830-1917 (1999).
  9. ^ "Yankees" in Janice Reiff, et al. eds. Encyclopedia of Chicago
  10. ^ William Cronon, Nature's metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (2009)
  11. ^ John M. Allswang, A House for All Peoples: Ethnic Politics in Chicago 1890--1936 (2015)
  12. ^ a b John Buenker (1988). "Wisconsin". In James H. Madison (ed.). Heartland: Comparative Histories of the Midwestern States. Indiana University Press. pp. 72–73. ISBN 978-0253314239.
  13. ^ a b Kleppner (1979)
  14. ^ a b Richard Jensen (1971). The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896. ISBN 9780226398259.
  15. ^ Hartmut Keil, and John B. Jentz, eds., German Workers in Industrial Chicago, 1850-1910: A Comparative Perspective (1983).
  16. ^ Norman Clark, Deliver Us from Evil: An Interpretation of American Prohibition (1976)
  17. ^ Burton W. Folsom (1981). "Tinkerers, Tipplers, and Traitors: Ethnicity and Democratic Reform in Nebraska During the Progressive Era". Pacific Historical Review. 50 (1): 53–75. doi:10.2307/3639338. JSTOR 3639338.
  18. ^ Sabine N. Meyer, We Are What We Drink: The Temperance Battle in Minnesota (U of Illinois Press, 2015)
  19. ^ Michael A. Lerner, Dry Manhattan: Prohibition in New York City (2009)
  20. ^ John F. Piper, The American Churches in World War I (1985).
  21. ^ Samuel S. Hill, Charles H. Lippy, and Charles Reagan Wilson, Encyclopedia of Religion in the South (2005) p. 297
  22. ^ Leslie V. Tischauser, The Burden of Ethnicity: The German Question in Chicago, 1914-1941 (Garland, 1990) pp 21-23
  23. ^ Frederick C. Luebke, Bonds of Loyalty: German-Americans and World War I (1974) pp 200-207
  24. ^ Carl Wittke, German-Americans and the World War (with Special Emphasis on Ohio's German-Language Press) (Columbus, Ohio, 1936), p. 209
  25. ^ "World War I, at home and in the trenches". Turning Points in Wisconsin History. Wisconsin Historical Society.
  26. ^ Kristofer Allerfeldt (Jan 2010). "'And We Got Here First': Albert Johnson, National Origins and Self-Interest in the Immigration Debate of the 1920s". Journal of Contemporary History. 45 (1): 7–26. doi:10.1177/0022009409348019. JSTOR 40542903. S2CID 143764832.
  27. ^ John Higham (1955). Strangers in the Land. pp. 301–330.
  28. ^ Kenneth T. Jackson (1992). The Ku Klux Klan in the City, 1915-1930. Ivan R. Dee. p. 18. ISBN 9781461730057.
  29. ^ Robert Moats Miller (1956). "A Note on the Relationship between the Protestant Churches and the Revived Ku Klux Klan". Journal of Southern History. 22 (3): 355–368. doi:10.2307/2954550. JSTOR 2954550.
  30. ^ Leonard J. Moore (1990). "Historical interpretations of the 1920s Klan: The traditional view and the populist revision". Journal of Social History. 24 (2): 341–357. doi:10.1353/jsh/24.2.341. JSTOR 3787502.
  31. ^ Shawn Lay, ed. (2004). The Invisible Empire in the West: Toward a New Historical Appraisal of the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s (2nd ed.). University of Illinois Press. p. viii. ISBN 9780252071713.
  32. ^ Kelly J. Baker, Gospel According to the Klan: The KKK's Appeal to Protestant America, 1915-1930 (2011)
  33. ^ .Elesha Coffman, "The 'Religious Issue' in Presidential Politics." American Catholic Studies (2008) 119#4 pp 1-20.
  34. ^ Robert A. Slayton (2001). Empire Statesman: The Rise and Redemption of Al Smith. pp. 323–28. ISBN 9780684863023.
  35. ^ John M. Allswang, New Deal and American Politics (1978)
  36. ^ Richard Jensen, "The Last Party System, 1932-1980," in Paul Kleppner, ed. Evolution of American Electoral Systems (1981)
  37. ^ William B. Prendergast, The Catholic Voter in American Politics: The Passing of the Democratic Monolith, (1999).
  38. ^ Ben Sales (November 7, 2018). "More than 75 percent of Jews voted for Democrats in the midterms". Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
  39. ^ Hanes Walton, African American Power and Politics: The Political Context Variable (1997)
  40. ^ "Religious liberals want to change what it means to be a Christian voter". Public Broadcasting Service. 8 July 2019. Retrieved 19 October 2020.

Further reading[edit]

  • Affigne, Tony. "The Latino Voice in Political Analysis, 1970–2014." in Tony Affigne, Evelyn Hu-DeHart and Marion Orr, eds. Latino Politics en Ciencia Política: The Search for Latino Identity and Racial Consciousness (2014) pp: 9-47.
  • Allswang, John M. A House for All Peoples: Ethnic Politics in Chicago 1890--1936 (University Press of Kentucky, 2015)
  • Anbinder, Tyler. "Nativism and prejudice against immigrants." in Reed Ueda, ed. A companion to American immigration (2006) pp: 177-201.
  • Berry, Justin A., Colin Cepuran, and Sergio Garcia-Rios. "Relative group discrimination and vote choice among Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Whites." Politics, Groups, and Identities 10.3 (2022): 410-429. online
  • Brown, Jacob R., and Ryan D. Enos. "The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters." Nature Human Behaviour 5.8 (2021): 998-1008.
  • Buenker, John D. and Lorman Ratner (2005). Multiculturalism in the United States: A Comparative Guide to Acculturation and Ethnicity. Greenwood. ISBN 9780313324048.
  • Connolly, James J. The triumph of ethnic progressivism: Urban political culture in Boston, 1900-1925 (Harvard University Press, 2009)
  • DeCanio, Samuel. "Religion and Nineteenth-Century Voting Behavior: A New Look at Some Old Data," Journal of Politics (2007) 69#2 pp 339–350. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00535.x
  • Erie, Steven P. Rainbow's End: Irish-Americans and the Dilemmas of Urban Machine Politics, 1840—1985 (University of California Press, 1988).
  • Fraga, Bernard L. The turnout gap: Race, ethnicity, and political inequality in a diversifying America (Cambridge University Press, 2018)
  • Gjerde, Jon (1999). The Minds of the West: Ethnocultural Evolution in the Rural Middle West, 1830-1917. Univ of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807848074.
  • Hartman, Andrew. A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars (University of Chicago Press, 2015) online review
  • Howe, Daniel W. "The Evangelical Movement and Political Culture in the North during the Second Party System." Journal of American History (1991) 77#4 pp: 1216–39.
  • Kleppner, Paul. The Third Electoral System, 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures (1979), Comprehensive national coverage of ethnocultural voting patterns
  • Layman, Geoffrey. The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics (Columbia University Press, 2001)
  • Lichtman, Allan J. "Political Realignment and 'Ethnocultural' Voting in Late Nineteenth Century America," Journal of Social History, (1983) 16#3, pp. 55–82 JSTOR 3786930
  • Lien, Pei-te. The Political Participation of Asian Americans: Voting Behavior in Southern California (Routledge, 2018)
  • Lynch, Patrick. "U.S. Presidential Elections in the Nineteenth Century: Why Culture and the Economy Both Mattered." Polity (2002) 35#1 pp: 29–50.
  • McCormick, Richard L. "Ethno-cultural interpretations of nineteenth-century American voting behavior." Political Science Quarterly (1974): 351-377. JSTOR 2149264
  • McClain, Paula. "Can we all get along?": Racial and ethnic minorities in American politics (Routledge, 2018).
  • McSeveney, Samuel T. "Ethnic groups, ethnic conflicts, and recent quantitative research in American political history." International Migration Review 7#1 (1973): 14-33. JSTOR 3002491
  • Morín, Jason L., Yoshira Macías Mejía, and Gabriel R. Sanchez. "Is the bridge broken? Increasing ethnic attachments and declining party influence among latino voters." Political Research Quarterly 74.1 (2021): 182-198. online
  • Prendergast, William B. The Catholic Voter in American Politics: The Passing of the Democratic Monolith, (1999).
  • Rodriguez, Marc Simon. Rethinking the Chicano Movement (Routledge, 2014)
  • Rodolfo, O. Ethnic ironies: Latino politics in the 1992 elections (Routledge, 2018).
  • Sadhwani, Sara. "Asian American mobilization: The effect of candidates and districts on Asian American voting behavior." Political Behavior 44.1 (2022): 105-131. online
  • Splitter, Wolfgang. "The Germans in Pennsylvania Politics, 1758-1790: A Quantitative Analysis." Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (1998): 39-76. online
  • Swierenga, Robert P. "Ethnocultural political analysis: a new approach to American ethnic studies." Journal of American Studies 5#1 (1971): 59-79.
  • Tully, Alan W. "Ethnicity, Religion, and Politics in Early America." Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (1983): 491-536. JSTOR 20091806 online
  • Vandermeer, Philip R. "Religion, society, and politics: a classification of American religious groups." Social Science History (1981): 3-24. JSTOR 1171088
  • Walton Jr, Hanes, Sherman C. Puckett, and Donald Richard Deskins. African American Electorate: A Statistical History (CQ Press, 2012)
  • Weisberg, Herbert F. "Reconsidering Jewish Presidential Voting Statistics." Contemporary Jewry 32#3 (2012): 215-236.
  • Wright, James E. "The ethnocultural model of voting." American Behavioral Scientist 16#5 (1973): 653-674. online
  • Wyman, Roger E. "Middle-class voters and progressive reform: The conflict of class and culture." American Political Science Review 68.02 (1974): 488-504.

APPENDICES: Voting[edit]

White Americans[edit]

Year Candidate of
the plurality
% of
1980 Ronald Reagan Republican Party 56% Won
1984 Ronald Reagan Republican 66% Won
1988 George H. W. Bush Republican 59% Won
1992 George H. W. Bush Republican 40% Lost
1996 Bob Dole Republican 46% Lost
2000 George W. Bush Republican 55% Won
2004 George W. Bush Republican 58% Won
2008 John McCain Republican 55% Lost
2012 Mitt Romney Republican 59% Lost
2016 Donald Trump Republican 57% Won
2020 Donald Trump Republican 58% Lost

Hispanic Americans[edit]

Year Candidate of
the plurality
% of
1980 Jimmy Carter Democratic 56% Lost
1984 Walter Mondale Democratic 61% Lost
1988 Michael Dukakis Democratic 69% Lost
1992 Bill Clinton Democratic 61% Won
1996 Bill Clinton Democratic 72% Won
2000 Al Gore Democratic 62% Lost
2004 John Kerry Democratic 58% Lost
2008 Barack Obama Democratic 67% Won
2012 Barack Obama Democratic 71% Won
2016 Hillary Clinton Democratic 65% Lost
2020 Joe Biden Democratic 63% Won

American Jews[edit]

Jewish vote to the Democratic Party in Presidential elections since 1916[1]
Candidate of the
Democratic Party
% of
Jewish vote to the
Democratic Party
Result of the
Democratic Party
1916 Woodrow Wilson 55 Won
1920 James M. Cox 19 Lost
1924 John W. Davis 51 Lost
1928 Al Smith 72 Lost
1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt 82 Won
1936 85 Won
1940 90 Won
1944 90 Won
1948 Harry Truman 75 Won
1952 Adlai Stevenson 64 Lost
1956 60 Lost
1960 John F. Kennedy 82 Won
1964 Lyndon B. Johnson 90 Won
1968 Hubert Humphrey 81 Lost
1972 George McGovern 65 Lost
1976 Jimmy Carter 71 Won
1980 45 Lost
1984 Walter Mondale 67 Lost
1988 Michael Dukakis 64 Lost
1992 Bill Clinton 80 Won
1996 78 Won
2000 Al Gore 79 Lost
2004 John Kerry 76 Lost
2008 Barack Obama 78 Won
2012 69 Won
2016 Hillary Clinton 71[2] Lost
2020 Joe Biden 77[3] Won
  1. ^ "Jewish Vote In Presidential Elections". American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. Retrieved October 28, 2008.
  2. ^ Smith, Gregory A.; Martínez, Jessica (9 November 2016). "How the faithful voted: A preliminary 2016 analysis". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 13 January 2017.
  3. ^ Magid, Jacob; JTA (4 November 2020). "Poll: Jewish voters favored Biden over Trump 77-21". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 4 November 2020.