1928 United States presidential election in Indiana explained

See main article: 1928 United States presidential election.

Election Name:	1928 United States presidential election in Indiana
Country:	Indiana
Type:	presidential
Ongoing:	no
Previous Election:	1924 United States presidential election in Indiana
Previous Year:	1924
Next Election:	1932 United States presidential election in Indiana
Next Year:	1932
Election Date:	November 6, 1928
Image1:	Herbert Hoover - NARA - 532049.jpg
Nominee1:	Herbert Hoover
Party1:	Republican Party (United States)
Home State1:	California
Running Mate1:	Charles Curtis
Electoral Vote1:	15
Popular Vote1:	848,290
Percentage1:	59.68%
Nominee2:	Al Smith
Party2:	Democratic Party (United States)
Home State2:	New York
Running Mate2:	Joseph T. Robinson
Electoral Vote2:	0
Popular Vote2:	562,691
Percentage2:	39.59%
Map Size:	300px
President
Before Election:	Calvin Coolidge
Before Party:	Republican Party (United States)
After Election:	Herbert Hoover
After Party:	Republican Party (United States)

The 1928 United States presidential election in Indiana took place on November 6, 1928, as part of the 1928 United States presidential election which was held throughout all contemporary 48 states. Voters chose 15 representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.

Since the Civil War, partisan alliances in Indiana had been related to history of White settlement, with most of Southern Indiana and German-settled counties voting strongly Democratic, opposed to Yankee-settled Northern Indiana which voted Republican.^[1] Some breakdown of these traditional loyalties took place in the 1920s due to German opposition to Woodrow Wilson’s World War I policies,^[2] but these occurred to a lesser extent than in other Midwestern states because of the conservative dominance within Indiana’s Democratic Party.

1928, with most other Democrats standing out as they felt the party had no chance of winning due to the prosperous economy,^[3] saw New York Governor Al Smith nominated almost by default. Many traditionally Democratic Upland Southerners recoiled at the nomination of Smith because he was a devout Catholic, opposed to Prohibition, and associated with the corruption of the Tammany Hall political machine. Smith’s decision to run with Arkansas Senator Joseph T. Robinson, a “dry” and Protestant, did not alleviate fears of what he would do in the White House.

The Republican nominee, former Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover of California, lost the GOP primary in Indiana,^[4] but won the nomination nationally. The Democratic primary was held very late in the primary season and was won by Smith, who by then had already effectively wrapped up the nomination, despite the state originally casting its vote for favorite son Evans Woollen.^[5]

In a state whose farmers' were suffering a financial crisis amidst national prosperity due to the loss of demand following the war, the Indiana Farm Bureau would not endorse either ticket.^[6] However, Indiana's Senator James E. Watson said that Hoover would carry the state despite these obvious problems.^[7]

After becoming certain to be nominated, it was thought by The Wall Street Journal that Smith would have to carry Indiana to have any chance of winning the Presidency.^[8] However, as early as the beginning of July politicos said that prohibitionist and anti-Catholic forces in Indiana gave Smith no chance of carrying the state,^[9] despite Smith saying he would enforce the law if elected.^[10] At the end of August, pollsters were already suggesting that the latent opposition of the anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan – which had all but ruled Indiana earlier in the 1920s – and the prohibitionist Anti-Saloon League in rural areas of Indiana would of itself make it impossible for Smith to carry the state.^[11]

Hoover visited Indiana late in August as part of the Lake County Fair, focusing on the agricultural crisis and, alongside Iowa Senator Smith W. Brookhart, blaming the Democrats and the Federal Reserve System for the extant farm crisis.^[12] Smith did not visit the state during the fall campaign, and polls throughout that season saw the state as safe for Hoover.^{[13] [14]}

Ultimately Hoover carried the state by 20.09 percentage points, which was at the time the best Republican result ever achieved in Indiana, although it was beaten in 1956, 1972, 1984 and 2004.^[15], this is nonetheless the last occasion when Indiana voted more Democratic than the modern “blue wall” states of California and Washington.

Results

1928 United States presidential election in Indiana^[16]
Party		Candidate	Votes	Percentage	Electoral votes
	Republican	Herbert Hoover	848,290	59.68%	15
	Democratic	Alfred E. Smith	562,691	39.59%	0
	Prohibition	William F. Varney	5,496	0.39%	0
	Socialist	Norman Thomas	3,871	0.27%	0
	Socialist Labor	Verne L. Reynolds	645	0.05%	0
	Workers	William Z. Foster	321	0.02%	0
Totals			1,421,314	100.00%	15

Results by county

County! colspan="2"

Herbert Clark Hoover^[17] Republican	Alfred Emmanuel Smith Democratic		William Frederick Varney Prohibition		Norman Mattoon Thomas Socialist		Various candidates Other parties		Margin		Total votes cast
data-sort-type="number"		data-sort-type="number"	%	data-sort-type="number"		data-sort-type="number"	%	data-sort-type="number"		data-sort-type="number"		%	data-sort-type="number"		data-sort-type="number"	%	data-sort-type="number"		data-sort-type="number"	%	data-sort-type="number"		data-sort-type="number"	%
	Adams		4,045		49.70%		4,066		49.96%		22		0.27%		6		0.07%		0		0.00%		-21		-0.26%		8,139
	Allen		34,234		56.38%		26,292		43.30%		87		0.14%		64		0.11%		43		0.07%		7,942		13.08%		60,720
	Bartholomew		6,788		57.76%		4,881		41.53%		39		0.33%		40		0.34%		4		0.03%		1,907		16.23%		11,752
	Benton		3,360		58.37%		2,368		41.14%		18		0.31%		7		0.12%		3		0.05%		992		17.23%		5,756
	Blackford		3,882		59.35%		2,576		39.38%		31		0.47%		47		0.72%		5		0.08%		1,306		19.97%		6,541
	Boone		6,556		58.81%		4,500		40.37%		73		0.65%		15		0.13%		3		0.03%		2,056		18.44%		11,147
	Brown		959		48.51%		999		50.53%		13		0.66%		3		0.15%		3		0.15%		-40		-2.02%		1,977
	Carroll		4,780		59.54%		3,182		39.64%		64		0.80%		2		0.02%		0		0.00%		1,598		19.91%		8,028
	Cass		10,522		61.31%		6,522		38.00%		68		0.40%		46		0.27%		5		0.03%		4,000		23.31%		17,163
	Clark		8,056		56.39%		6,193		43.35%		28		0.20%		8		0.06%		0		0.00%		1,863		13.04%		14,285
	Clay		7,103		56.19%		5,358		42.39%		60		0.47%		111		0.88%		9		0.07%		1,745		13.80%		12,641
	Clinton		7,606		55.89%		5,895		43.31%		95		0.70%		13		0.10%		1		0.01%		1,711		12.57%		13,610
	Crawford		2,672		57.39%		1,933		41.52%		33		0.71%		17		0.37%		1		0.02%		739		15.87%		4,656
	Daviess		7,116		56.73%		5,324		42.45%		24		0.19%		74		0.59%		5		0.04%		1,792		14.29%		12,543
	Dearborn		6,334		58.49%		4,459		41.18%		22		0.20%		12		0.11%		2		0.02%		1,875		17.31%		10,829
	Decatur		5,400		58.40%		3,791		41.00%		36		0.39%		15		0.16%		4		0.04%		1,609		17.40%		9,246
	DeKalb		7,373		64.04%		4,077		35.41%		52		0.45%		12		0.10%		0		0.00%		3,296		28.63%		11,514
	Delaware		19,102		68.79%		8,532		30.72%		72		0.26%		54		0.19%		10		0.04%		10,570		38.06%		27,770
	Dubois		3,301		35.18%		6,044		64.41%		15		0.16%		17		0.18%		7		0.07%		-2,743		-29.23%		9,384
	Elkhart		20,876		74.76%		6,900		24.71%		71		0.25%		62		0.22%		15		0.05%		13,976		50.05%		27,924
	Fayette		5,874		62.63%		3,455		36.84%		29		0.31%		18		0.19%		3		0.03%		2,419		25.79%		9,379
	Floyd		10,471		58.49%		7,327		40.93%		51		0.28%		42		0.23%		11		0.06%		3,144		17.56%		17,902
	Fountain		4,960		55.60%		3,894		43.65%		43		0.48%		23		0.26%		1		0.01%		1,066		11.95%		8,921
	Franklin		3,426		47.19%		3,817		52.58%		11		0.15%		5		0.07%		1		0.01%		-391		-5.39%		7,260
	Fulton		4,627		61.09%		2,881		38.04%		62		0.82%		4		0.05%		0		0.00%		1,746		23.05%		7,574
	Gibson		8,137		57.07%		5,882		41.25%		123		0.86%		99		0.69%		18		0.13%		2,255		15.81%		14,259
	Grant		14,659		65.98%		7,273		32.74%		123		0.55%		146		0.66%		15		0.07%		7,386		33.25%		22,216
	Greene		8,262		57.81%		5,761		40.31%		70		0.49%		172		1.20%		26		0.18%		2,501		17.50%		14,291
	Hamilton		7,690		67.60%		3,611		31.75%		70		0.62%		4		0.04%		0		0.00%		4,079		35.86%		11,375
	Hancock		4,788		56.49%		3,626		42.78%		51		0.60%		10		0.12%		1		0.01%		1,162		13.71%		8,476
	Harrison		4,440		54.43%		3,664		44.91%		39		0.48%		11		0.13%		4		0.05%		776		9.51%		8,158
	Hendricks		5,954		64.79%		3,181		34.61%		40		0.44%		13		0.14%		2		0.02%		2,773		30.17%		9,190
	Henry		10,502		68.53%		4,554		29.72%		224		1.46%		41		0.27%		3		0.02%		5,948		38.81%		15,324
	Howard		12,632		66.89%		5,930		31.40%		205		1.09%		106		0.56%		12		0.06%		6,702		35.49%		18,885
	Huntington		8,323		58.88%		5,678		40.17%		85		0.60%		42		0.30%		8		0.06%		2,645		18.71%		14,136
	Jackson		5,151		49.78%		5,130		49.58%		48		0.46%		15		0.14%		3		0.03%		21		0.20%		10,347
	Jasper		3,700		65.65%		1,915		33.98%		19		0.34%		1		0.02%		1		0.02%		1,785		31.67%		5,636
	Jay		5,998		55.31%		4,759		43.89%		74		0.68%		9		0.08%		4		0.04%		1,239		11.43%		10,844
	Jefferson		5,295		57.24%		3,906		42.22%		40		0.43%		8		0.09%		2		0.02%		1,389		15.01%		9,251
	Jennings		3,705		60.76%		2,369		38.85%		20		0.33%		3		0.05%		1		0.02%		1,336		21.91%		6,098
	Johnson		5,513		54.30%		4,548		44.80%		76		0.75%		14		0.14%		1		0.01%		965		9.51%		10,152
	Knox		10,035		49.92%		9,837		48.93%		69		0.34%		144		0.72%		19		0.09%		198		0.98%		20,104
	Kosciusko		7,973		63.18%		4,537		35.95%		82		0.65%		20		0.16%		8		0.06%		3,436		27.23%		12,620
	LaGrange		3,171		64.40%		1,720		34.93%		27		0.55%		3		0.06%		3		0.06%		1,451		29.47%		4,924
	Lake		48,768		59.68%		32,321		39.55%		179		0.22%		242		0.30%		209		0.26%		16,447		20.13%		81,719
	LaPorte		14,763		61.32%		9,254		38.44%		25		0.10%		25		0.10%		8		0.03%		5,509		22.88%		24,075
	Lawrence		9,844		68.70%		4,428		30.90%		33		0.23%		22		0.15%		2		0.01%		5,416		37.80%		14,329
	Madison		23,083		64.45%		12,496		34.89%		124		0.35%		104		0.29%		7		0.02%		10,587		29.56%		35,814
	Marion		109,630		59.55%		73,309		39.82%		457		0.25%		479		0.26%		225		0.12%		36,321		19.73%		184,100
	Marshall		6,738		60.24%		4,377		39.13%		60		0.54%		10		0.09%		0		0.00%		2,361		21.11%		11,185
	Martin		2,450		51.88%		2,245		47.54%		11		0.23%		16		0.34%		0		0.00%		205		4.34%		4,722
	Miami		8,318		59.19%		5,592		39.80%		100		0.71%		36		0.26%		6		0.04%		2,726		19.40%		14,052
	Monroe		8,883		67.00%		4,317		32.56%		36		0.27%		23		0.17%		0		0.00%		4,566		34.44%		13,259
	Montgomery		8,863		63.69%		4,960		35.64%		72		0.52%		20		0.14%		0		0.00%		3,903		28.05%		13,915
	Morgan		5,464		57.76%		3,933		41.58%		39		0.41%		21		0.22%		3		0.03%		1,531		16.18%		9,460
	Newton		3,053		64.48%		1,649		34.83%		21		0.44%		10		0.21%		2		0.04%		1,404		29.65%		4,735
	Noble		6,338		59.76%		4,207		39.67%		42		0.40%		17		0.16%		1		0.01%		2,131		20.09%		10,605
	Ohio		1,230		57.10%		911		42.29%		12		0.56%		1		0.05%		0		0.00%		319		14.81%		2,154
	Orange		5,086		61.77%		3,112		37.79%		20		0.24%		10		0.12%		6		0.07%		1,974		23.97%		8,234
	Owen		3,036		55.03%		2,420		43.86%		32		0.58%		28		0.51%		1		0.02%		616		11.17%		5,517
	Parke		4,729		59.25%		3,165		39.66%		39		0.49%		47		0.59%		1		0.01%		1,564		19.60%		7,981
	Perry		3,772		49.89%		3,782		50.02%		2		0.03%		5		0.07%		0		0.00%		-10		-0.13%		7,561
	Pike		4,190		54.61%		3,409		44.43%		32		0.42%		36		0.47%		6		0.08%		781		10.18%		7,673
	Porter		7,107		70.44%		2,921		28.95%		26		0.26%		32		0.32%		4		0.04%		4,186		41.49%		10,090
	Posey		4,396		51.80%		4,052		47.74%		22		0.26%		14		0.16%		3		0.04%		344		4.05%		8,487
	Pulaski		2,738		56.43%		2,040		42.04%		68		1.40%		6		0.12%		0		0.00%		698		14.39%		4,852
	Putnam		5,351		55.72%		4,177		43.50%		24		0.25%		43		0.45%		8		0.08%		1,174		12.23%		9,603
	Randolph		8,368		71.32%		3,264		27.82%		93		0.79%		7		0.06%		1		0.01%		5,104		43.50%		11,733
	Ripley		5,059		53.39%		4,387		46.30%		12		0.13%		15		0.16%		3		0.03%		672		7.09%		9,476
	Rush		6,640		68.38%		2,996		30.85%		68		0.70%		7		0.07%		0		0.00%		3,644		37.52%		9,711
	Scott		1,719		52.68%		1,527		46.80%		15		0.46%		2		0.06%		0		0.00%		192		5.88%		3,263
	Shelby		7,516		56.14%		5,790		43.24%		70		0.52%		11		0.08%		2		0.01%		1,726		12.89%		13,389
	Spencer		4,672		52.83%		4,152		46.95%		15		0.17%		2		0.02%		3		0.03%		520		5.88%		8,844
	St. Joseph		36,844		57.56%		26,846		41.94%		169		0.26%		106		0.17%		41		0.06%		9,998		15.62%		64,006
	Starke		2,759		57.32%		2,016		41.89%		12		0.25%		23		0.48%		3		0.06%		743		15.44%		4,813
	Steuben		4,435		71.35%		1,730		27.83%		41		0.66%		9		0.14%		1		0.02%		2,705		43.52%		6,216
	Sullivan		6,199		51.09%		5,642		46.50%		79		0.65%		184		1.52%		30		0.25%		557		4.59%		12,134
	Switzerland		2,617		58.62%		1,805		40.43%		39		0.87%		3		0.07%		0		0.00%		812		18.19%		4,464
	Tippecanoe		15,165		63.25%		8,720		36.37%		59		0.25%		28		0.12%		6		0.03%		6,445		26.88%		23,978
	Tipton		4,774		59.30%		3,186		39.58%		74		0.92%		14		0.17%		2		0.02%		1,588		19.73%		8,050
	Union		2,101		65.99%		1,069		33.57%		13		0.41%		1		0.03%		0		0.00%		1,032		32.41%		3,184
	Vanderburgh		29,067		59.44%		19,646		40.17%		90		0.18%		62		0.13%		40		0.08%		9,421		19.26%		48,905
	Vermillion		5,192		51.41%		4,793		47.46%		31		0.31%		75		0.74%		9		0.09%		399		3.95%		10,100
	Vigo		22,962		54.71%		18,509		44.10%		95		0.23%		360		0.86%		42		0.10%		4,453		10.61%		41,968
	Wabash		8,537		68.25%		3,872		30.96%		68		0.54%		25		0.20%		6		0.05%		4,665		37.30%		12,508
	Warren		2,644		68.57%		1,188		30.81%		12		0.31%		10		0.26%		2		0.05%		1,456		37.76%		3,856
	Warrick		4,603		54.12%		3,744		44.02%		138		1.62%		15		0.18%		5		0.06%		859		10.10%		8,505
	Washington		3,835		51.96%		3,518		47.66%		19		0.26%		9		0.12%		0		0.00%		317		4.29%		7,381
	Wayne		15,936		67.52%		7,547		31.98%		59		0.25%		56		0.24%		3		0.01%		8,389		35.55%		23,601
	Wells		4,142		48.93%		4,246		50.16%		66		0.78%		8		0.09%		3		0.04%		-104		-1.23%		8,465
	White		4,534		60.01%		2,980		39.44%		28		0.37%		13		0.17%		1		0.01%		1,554		20.57%		7,556
	Whitley		4,519		57.43%		3,294		41.86%		51		0.65%		2		0.03%		3		0.04%		1,225		15.57%		7,869
Totals	848,290	59.68%	562,691	39.59%	5,496	0.39%	3,871	0.27%	966	0.07%	285,599	20.09%	1,421,314

See also

• United States presidential elections in Indiana

Notes and References

1. [Kevin Phillips (political commentator)|Phillips, Kevin P.]
2. Phillips, The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 356
3. Paulson, Arthur C.; Electoral Realignment and the Outlook for American Democracy; p. 61
4. ‘Last Chance Gone for Nomination in the Open: Hoover's Defeat in Indiana Throws Control of Republican Convention Back Into Hands of Professionals’; Daily Boston Globe, May 13, 1928, p. B2
5. ‘Indiana Offers to Shift to Gov. Smith On First Ballot After Casting Votes for Woolen’; The New York Times, June 23, 1928, p. 1
6. ‘Farmers Urge Hoover to State Relief Plans: Indianans Ask for Specific Outline in Acceptance – Neither Ticket Is Endorsed’; The New York Times, July 13, 1928, p. 3
7. ‘Declares Indiana Will Go for Hoover: Senator Watson Says Here That Nominee’s Farm Views Will Cut Present Disaffection’; The New York Times, July 17, 1928, p. 2
8. ‘Indicated Strength of 1928 Candidates: Smith’s Chances in National Contest Compared with Coolidge and Hoover Slate of Votes’; The Wall Street Journal, May 26, 1928, p. 2
9. Henning, Arthur Sears; ‘Democrats’ Hopes Seen in Corn Belt and the West East: Two Battlegrounds Chosen for Inroads on States Normally Republican’; The Washington Post, July 1, 1928, p. 4
10. ‘Indiana Democrats Uphold Dry Plank: Smith Will Enforce the Law Better Than Those in Power, It Is Held’; The Washington Post, July 17, 1928, p. 5
11. Oulahan, Richard V.; ‘Republicans Turn to Fight in East; Think West Is Safe: Work’s Coming Visit to This Region Stresses Belief That This Is Chief Battleground’; The New York Times, August 26, 1928, p. 1
12. ‘Brookhart Visions Hoover Prosperity: Iowa Insurgent Asserts Republican Victory Will Solve Agricultural Problem’; The New York Times, August 27, 1928, p. 5
13. Tucker, Robert G.; ‘Indiana for Hoover Party Leaders Say: But Figures on Majority Are Being Reduced; Klan Backs G.O.P. State Fight Is in Doubt’; The Washington Post, September 16, 1928, p. M4
14. Tucker, Robert G.; ‘Big Odd Are Faced by Smith in Indiana: Held to Have Hardest Fight of Any Democrat in Recent Years. G.O.P. Majority Claimed’; The Washington Post, September 30, 1928, p. M4
15. Web site: Presidential General Election Results Comparison – Indiana. Dave Leip’s U.S. Election Atlas.
16. Web site: 1928 Presidential General Election Results – Indiana. 2013-08-02 . Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.
17. Web site: Our Campaigns. IN US President Race, November 06, 1928.