1928 United States presidential election in Texas

none June 2025 September 2023 1928 United States presidential election 1928 United States presidential election in Texas Texas presidential no 1924 United States presidential election in Texas 1924 1932 United States presidential election in Texas 1932 November 6, 1928 x200px Herbert Hoover - NARA - 532049.jpg Herbert Hoover Republican Party (United States) California Charles Curtis 20 367,036 51.77% Unsuccessful 1928.jpg Al Smith Democratic Party (United States) New York Joseph T. Robinson 0 341,032 48.10% 350px County results 350px Congressional district results 1 350px Hoover #e27f90 50–60% #cc2f4a 60–70% #d40000 70–80% #aa0000 80–90% Smith #86b6f2 50–60% #4389e3 60–70% #1666cb 70–80% #0645b4 80–90% #002b84 90–100% President Calvin Coolidge Republican Party (United States) Herbert Hoover Republican Party (United States) The 1928 United States presidential election in Texas took place on November 6, 1928, as part of the 1928 United States presidential election which was held throughout all contemporary forty-eight states. Voters chose 20 representatives, or electors, to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president. Ever since statehood, Texas had been one of the strongest states in the nation for the Democratic Party, owing to its early history as a southern state based around slavery. Even during Reconstruction when African Americans were briefly enfranchised, the Republican Party won just one statewide election. By the time Texas participated in its first postbellum election in 1872, cracks were emerging in Republican Reconstruction plans, so that the Democratic "Redeemers" gained control of Southern legislatures by 1874.Granthan, Dewey W.; The Life and Death of the Solid South: A Political History, pp. 3–4 0813148723 After "Redemption" and the passing of a new constitution in 1876 the GOP became confined largely to areas of abolitionist German "Forty-Eighter" settlement in the Hill Country,Bass, Jack; The Transformation of Southern Politics: Social Change and Political Consequence Since 1945, p. 25 0820317284 and to a few South Texas counties where local Republican bosses could outcompete their Democratic equivalents.Weeks, O. Douglas; 'The Texas Mexican and the Politics of South Texas'; The American Political Science Review, vol. 24, no. 3 (Aug., 1930), pp. 606–627 The Terrell Election Law created a poll tax that, from 1902, disenfranchised virtually all remaining African-American voters, the vast majority of Mexican Americans, and also most poor whites.Davidson, Chandler; Race and Class in Texas Politics, p. 21 0691025398 Voter turnout among males over twenty-one fell from over eighty percent to under thirty percent following introduction of the poll tax.Davison; Race and Class in Texas Politics, p. 24 The period following this disfranchisement nonetheless saw a substantial amount of typically "Progressive" reform under Governors James Stephen Hogg and Thomas M. Campbell, and despite this progressive faction ceding power in 1906 to the conservatives, Texas proved solid in its support for progressive candidate Woodrow Wilson at the 1912 Democratic National Convention.Grantham; The Life and Death of the Solid South, pp. 50–52 In the meantime, Texas continued to vote solidly Democratic: between 1904 and 1924 no Republican nominee reached 24% of the statewide vote total.Dave Leip's U.S. Election Atlas; Presidential General Election Results Comparison – Texas Hoover won Texas by a narrow margin of 3.67 percent. His victory in the state made him the first Republican presidential candidate to carry Texas.Ironically, 4 years after achieving this historic feat, Hoover would go on to lose Texas by the largest margin of any major candidate in presidential history, losing every county and not even garnering 100,000 votes.Leip Dave Dave Leip's US Presidential Election Atlas- Texas Results 1932 https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1932&fips=48&f=0&off=0&elect=0 uselectionatlas Dave Leip 27 March 2019 He produced a swing of over 32 percent compared to the vote for Calvin Coolidge in 1924; however, there were huge variations. The traditionally Republican Texas German counties of Comal and Guadalupe, along with the former 1920 Ferguson counties of Lee and Washington voted overwhelmingly for Smith in appreciation of his views on Prohibition:Richardson, Rupert N.; Anderson, Adrian; Wintz, Cary D. and Wallace Ernest; Texas: The Lone Star State, p. 314 1315509806 in Comal County, which had been Robert La Follette's strongest nationwide in 1924,Dave Leip's U.S. Election Atlas; 1924 Presidential Election Statistics the Democratic vote rose from 13 to 78%, thus supporting La Follette's family's endorsement of Smith after he died. In contrast, numerous Baptist High Plains counties saw Hoover gain over fifty percent relative to Coolidge due to vehement opposition to Catholicism and repeal of Prohibition.Phillips, Kevin P.; The Emerging Republican Majority, pp. 214, 317, 352 1400852293 Hoover was also helped by a powerful vote from the emerging middle class in Dallas–Fort Worth and Houston:Phillips; The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 212 his combined margin in Harris, Dallas and Tarrant Counties was slightly larger than his statewide plurality.McKay, Seth Shepard; Texas politics, 1906-1944, p. 182 East Texas, the earliest-settled region of the state with greatest white resentment of the Republican Party's association with Reconstruction, and South Texas, in which white voters had similar fears of Mexican-American political power, remained normally loyal to Smith.Key, V.O. junior; Southern Politics in State and Nation; p. 324 087049435X Texas wouldn't support another Republican presidential candidate until 1952 when Texan-born Dwight D. Eisenhower carried the state. This was the last presidential election until 2024 in which Maverick County voted for the Republican candidate. This was also the first time a Texas Presidential election had even been decided by single digits, as since statehood the Democratic party had won every election in a blowout, except in 1864 and 1868 when elections were not held. Indeed, during that span Republicans only came within 30% of winning the state once, during the reconstruction landslide of 1872 when Grant lost the state by 16.36%. Results 1928 United States presidential election in Texashttps://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1928&fips=48&f=0&off=0&elect=0&minper=0 1928 Presidential General Election Results - Texas 2013-08-02 Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential ElectionsPartyCandidateVotesPercentageElectoral votes Republican Herbert Hoover 367,036 51.77% 20 Democratic Al Smith 341,032 48.10% 0 Socialist Norman Thomas 722 0.10% 0 Communist William Z. Foster 209 0.03% 0 Totals 708,999 100.00% 20 Voter turnout (voting age) 24.8%Burnham, Walter Dean; ‘A Political Scientist and Voting-Rights Litigation: The Case of the 1966 Texas Registration Statute’; p. 353 Results by county +1928 United States presidential election in Texas by countyScammon, Richard M. (compiler); America at the Polls: A Handbook of Presidential Election Statistics 1920-1964; pp. 431–435 0405077114 County Herbert HooverRepublican Al SmithDemocratic Various candidatesOther parties Margin Total votes cast # % # % # % # % Anderson 1,814 50.94% 1,747 49.06% 0 0.00% 67 1.88% 3,561 Andrews 66 72.53% 25 27.47% 0 0.00% 41 45.05% 91 Angelina 1,209 34.41% 2,305 65.59% 0 0.00% -1,096 -31.19% 3,514 Aransas 161 51.44% 152 48.56% 0 0.00% 9 2.88% 313 Archer 799 48.02% 865 51.98% 0 0.00% -66 -3.97% 1,664 Armstrong 316 45.80% 373 54.06% 1 0.14% -57 -8.26% 690 Atascosa 888 56.56% 682 43.44% 0 0.00% 206 13.12% 1,570 Austin 466 17.94% 2,129 81.98% 2 0.08% -1,663 -64.04% 2,597 Bailey 410 74.28% 142 25.72% 0 0.00% 268 48.55% 552 Bandera 936 74.52% 317 25.24% 3 0.24% 619 49.28% 1,256 Bastrop 850 35.65% 1,534 64.35% 0 0.00% -684 -28.69% 2,384 Baylor 491 38.51% 784 61.49% 0 0.00% -293 -22.98% 1,275 Bee 1,189 53.18% 1,043 46.65% 4 0.18% 146 6.53% 2,236 Bell 3,366 52.17% 3,079 47.72% 7 0.11% 287 4.45% 6,452 Bexar 16,477 49.69% 16,626 50.14% 57 0.17% -149 -0.45% 33,160 Blanco 615 53.25% 539 46.67% 1 0.09% 76 6.58% 1,155 Borden 98 57.31% 73 42.69% 0 0.00% 25 14.62% 171 Bosque 1,526 55.19% 1,235 44.67% 4 0.14% 291 10.52% 2,765 Bowie 2,225 42.57% 3,002 57.43% 0 0.00% -777 -14.87% 5,227 Brazoria 1,588 59.39% 1,086 40.61% 0 0.00% 502 18.77% 2,674 Brazos 738 33.23% 1,480 66.64% 3 0.14% -742 -33.41% 2,221 Brewster 406 59.36% 273 39.91% 5 0.73% 133 19.44% 684 Briscoe 301 46.96% 336 52.42% 4 0.62% -35 -5.46% 641 Brooks 160 32.52% 332 67.48% 0 0.00% -172 -34.96% 492 Brown 2,033 50.46% 1,992 49.44% 4 0.10% 41 1.02% 4,029 Burleson 339 17.87% 1,558 82.13% 0 0.00% -1,219 -64.26% 1,897 Burnet 936 66.67% 467 33.26% 1 0.07% 469 33.40% 1,404 Caldwell 1,189 49.54% 1,211 50.46% 0 0.00% -22 -0.92% 2,400 Calhoun 333 46.84% 375 52.74% 3 0.42% -42 -5.91% 711 Callahan 979 51.02% 940 48.98% 0 0.00% 39 2.03% 1,919 Cameron 3,544 52.45% 3,202 47.39% 11 0.16% 342 5.06% 6,757 Camp 494 43.56% 640 56.44% 0 0.00% -146 -12.87% 1,134 Carson 891 60.04% 592 39.89% 1 0.07% 299 20.15% 1,484 Cass 1,323 43.79% 1,698 56.21% 0 0.00% -375 -12.41% 3,021 Castro 319 45.38% 384 54.62% 0 0.00% -65 -9.25% 703 Chambers 256 51.41% 242 48.59% 0 0.00% 14 2.81% 498 Cherokee 1,933 49.94% 1,938 50.06% 0 0.00% -5 -0.13% 3,871 Childress 1,438 66.45% 726 33.55% 0 0.00% 712 32.90% 2,164 Clay 1,327 53.36% 1,160 46.64% 0 0.00% 167 6.71% 2,487 Cochran 197 64.38% 109 35.62% 0 0.00% 88 28.76% 306 Coke 450 68.60% 206 31.40% 0 0.00% 244 37.20% 656 Coleman 1,645 53.00% 1,459 47.00% 0 0.00% 186 5.99% 3,104 Collin 3,476 50.55% 3,377 49.11% 23 0.33% 99 1.44% 6,876 Collingsworth 1,179 65.98% 608 34.02% 0 0.00% 571 31.95% 1,787 Colorado 891 33.22% 1,787 66.63% 4 0.15% -896 -33.41% 2,682 Comal 508 21.14% 1,893 78.78% 2 0.08% -1,385 -57.64% 2,403 Comanche 1,483 53.08% 1,311 46.92% 0 0.00% 172 6.16% 2,794 Concho 446 50.97% 426 48.69% 3 0.34% 20 2.29% 875 Cooke 2,262 53.99% 1,924 45.92% 4 0.10% 338 8.07% 4,190 Coryell 1,123 46.21% 1,306 53.74% 1 0.04% -183 -7.53% 2,430 Cottle 473 51.19% 451 48.81% 0 0.00% 22 2.38% 924 Crane 127 44.41% 159 55.59% 0 0.00% -32 -11.19% 286 Crockett 291 81.97% 64 18.03% 0 0.00% 227 63.94% 355 Crosby 1,004 57.97% 728 42.03% 0 0.00% 276 15.94% 1,732 Culberson 72 45.86% 85 54.14% 0 0.00% -13 -8.28% 157 Dallam 618 53.00% 539 46.23% 9 0.77% 79 6.78% 1,166 Dallas 27,272 60.89% 17,437 38.93% 78 0.17% 9,835 21.96% 44,787 Dawson 1,448 77.23% 427 22.77% 0 0.00% 1,021 54.45% 1,875 Deaf Smith 570 58.10% 411 41.90% 0 0.00% 159 16.21% 981 Delta 753 43.96% 958 55.93% 2 0.12% -205 -11.97% 1,713 Denton 2,587 51.89% 2,384 47.81% 15 0.30% 203 4.07% 4,986 DeWitt 1,142 41.66% 1,594 58.15% 5 0.18% -452 -16.49% 2,741 Dickens 741 64.10% 415 35.90% 0 0.00% 326 28.20% 1,156 Dimmit 626 70.81% 258 29.19% 0 0.00% 368 41.63% 884 Donley 1,092 68.90% 491 30.98% 2 0.13% 601 37.92% 1,585 Duval 434 25.85% 1,245 74.15% 0 0.00% -811 -48.30% 1,679 Eastland 3,233 56.38% 2,501 43.62% 0 0.00% 732 12.77% 5,734 Ector 168 52.66% 151 47.34% 0 0.00% 17 5.33% 319 Edwards 546 89.66% 59 9.69% 4 0.66% 487 79.97% 609 Ellis 3,569 44.72% 4,399 55.12% 13 0.16% -830 -10.40% 7,981 El Paso 6,050 49.74% 6,114 50.26% 0 0.00% -64 -0.53% 12,164 Erath 1,923 56.94% 1,372 40.63% 82 2.43% 551 16.32% 3,377 Falls 877 26.04% 2,484 73.75% 7 0.21% -1,607 -47.71% 3,368 Fannin 2,122 45.62% 2,525 54.29% 4 0.09% -403 -8.66% 4,651 Fayette 689 15.87% 3,647 84.01% 5 0.12% -2,958 -68.14% 4,341 Fisher 1,259 60.07% 837 39.93% 0 0.00% 422 20.13% 2,096 Floyd 1,176 63.84% 666 36.16% 0 0.00% 510 27.69% 1,842 Foard 430 47.51% 466 51.49% 9 0.99% -36 -3.98% 905 Fort Bend 631 26.77% 1,724 73.14% 2 0.08% -1,093 -46.37% 2,357 Franklin 386 35.12% 713 64.88% 0 0.00% -327 -29.75% 1,099 Freestone 1,178 47.14% 1,318 52.74% 3 0.12% -140 -5.60% 2,499 Frio 673 72.21% 258 27.68% 1 0.11% 415 44.53% 932 Gaines 312 69.03% 140 30.97% 0 0.00% 172 38.05% 452 Galveston 4,401 42.43% 5,951 57.38% 20 0.19% -1,550 -14.94% 10,372 Garza 794 73.59% 285 26.41% 0 0.00% 509 47.17% 1,079 Gillespie 1,447 55.12% 1,174 44.72% 4 0.15% 273 10.40% 2,625 Glasscock 124 78.48% 34 21.52% 0 0.00% 90 56.96% 158 Goliad 554 54.10% 468 45.70% 2 0.20% 86 8.40% 1,024 Gonzales 1,112 45.74% 1,319 54.26% 0 0.00% -207 -8.52% 2,431 Gray 1,871 65.35% 986 34.44% 6 0.21% 885 30.91% 2,863 Grayson 6,277 57.63% 4,600 42.23% 15 0.14% 1,677 15.40% 10,892 Gregg 646 39.29% 996 60.58% 2 0.12% -350 -21.29% 1,644 Grimes 701 37.37% 1,175 62.63% 0 0.00% -474 -25.27% 1,876 Guadalupe 1,442 43.46% 1,872 56.42% 4 0.12% -430 -12.96% 3,318 Hale 2,143 65.98% 1,098 33.81% 7 0.22% 1,045 32.17% 3,248 Hall 1,409 74.08% 493 25.92% 0 0.00% 916 48.16% 1,902 Hamilton 927 48.38% 989 51.62% 0 0.00% -62 -3.24% 1,916 Hansford 417 56.58% 319 43.28% 1 0.14% 98 13.30% 737 Hardeman 1,333 59.43% 910 40.57% 0 0.00% 423 18.86% 2,243 Hardin 951 47.96% 1,032 52.04% 0 0.00% -81 -4.08% 1,983 Harris 27,188 55.70% 21,536 44.12% 86 0.18% 5,652 11.58% 48,810 Harrison 1,776 46.69% 2,023 53.18% 5 0.13% -247 -6.49% 3,804 Hartley 179 52.34% 163 47.66% 0 0.00% 16 4.68% 342 Haskell 1,430 48.08% 1,532 51.51% 12 0.40% -102 -3.43% 2,974 Hays 1,088 63.70% 620 36.30% 0 0.00% 468 27.40% 1,708 Hemphill 489 60.67% 317 39.33% 0 0.00% 172 21.34% 806 Henderson 1,128 39.52% 1,726 60.48% 0 0.00% -598 -20.95% 2,854 Hidalgo 4,285 51.41% 4,034 48.40% 16 0.19% 251 3.01% 8,335 Hill 2,446 50.34% 2,413 49.66% 0 0.00% 33 0.68% 4,859 Hockley 765 75.82% 235 23.29% 9 0.89% 530 52.53% 1,009 Hood 640 57.09% 479 42.73% 2 0.18% 161 14.36% 1,121 Hopkins 1,767 48.85% 1,845 51.01% 5 0.14% -78 -2.16% 3,617 Houston 763 36.35% 1,336 63.65% 0 0.00% -573 -27.30% 2,099 Howard 812 54.86% 665 44.93% 3 0.20% 147 9.93% 1,480 Hudspeth 123 51.25% 117 48.75% 0 0.00% 6 2.50% 240 Hunt 3,009 46.16% 3,510 53.84% 0 0.00% -501 -7.69% 6,519 Hutchinson 1,115 60.43% 730 39.57% 0 0.00% 385 20.87% 1,845 Irion 259 68.52% 119 31.48% 0 0.00% 140 37.04% 378 Jack 1,068 70.22% 450 29.59% 3 0.20% 618 40.63% 1,521 Jackson 572 54.68% 473 45.22% 1 0.10% 99 9.46% 1,046 Jasper 611 40.44% 898 59.43% 2 0.13% -287 -18.99% 1,511 Jeff Davis 157 58.15% 112 41.48% 1 0.37% 45 16.67% 270 Jefferson 9,209 56.74% 7,006 43.16% 16 0.10% 2,203 13.57% 16,231 Jim Hogg 109 29.30% 263 70.70% 0 0.00% -154 -41.40% 372 Jim Wells 423 36.06% 747 63.68% 3 0.26% -324 -27.62% 1,173 Johnson 3,181 61.58% 1,981 38.35% 4 0.08% 1,200 23.23% 5,166 Jones 1,995 55.95% 1,563 43.83% 8 0.22% 432 12.11% 3,566 Karnes 855 44.83% 1,052 55.17% 0 0.00% -197 -10.33% 1,907 Kaufman 1,718 39.27% 2,657 60.73% 0 0.00% -939 -21.46% 4,375 Kendall 663 63.63% 377 36.18% 2 0.19% 286 27.45% 1,042 Kenedy 12 9.23% 118 90.77% 0 0.00% -106 -81.54% 130 Kent 363 69.01% 163 30.99% 0 0.00% 200 38.02% 526 Kerr 1,575 73.36% 570 26.55% 2 0.09% 1,005 46.81% 2,147 Kimble 660 80.39% 157 19.12% 4 0.49% 503 61.27% 821 King 85 65.38% 45 34.62% 0 0.00% 40 30.77% 130 Kinney 182 47.64% 200 52.36% 0 0.00% -18 -4.71% 382 Kleberg 751 51.94% 695 48.06% 0 0.00% 56 3.87% 1,446 Knox 992 55.70% 784 44.02% 5 0.28% 208 11.68% 1,781 Lamar 2,887 57.08% 2,163 42.76% 8 0.16% 724 14.31% 5,058 Lamb 1,266 74.21% 440 25.79% 0 0.00% 826 48.42% 1,706 Lampasas 899 60.91% 567 38.41% 10 0.68% 332 22.49% 1,476 La Salle 327 40.57% 479 59.43% 0 0.00% -152 -18.86% 806 Lavaca 911 24.27% 2,842 75.73% 0 0.00% -1,931 -51.45% 3,753 Lee 449 27.63% 1,176 72.37% 0 0.00% -727 -44.74% 1,625 Leon 543 38.59% 862 61.27% 2 0.14% -319 -22.67% 1,407 Liberty 1,070 53.63% 918 46.02% 7 0.35% 152 7.62% 1,995 Limestone 1,642 38.64% 2,608 61.36% 0 0.00% -966 -22.73% 4,250 Lipscomb 776 69.35% 331 29.58% 12 1.07% 445 39.77% 1,119 Live Oak 484 55.82% 383 44.18% 0 0.00% 101 11.65% 867 Llano 439 46.07% 514 53.93% 0 0.00% -75 -7.87% 953 Loving 6 37.50% 10 62.50% 0 0.00% -4 -25.00% 16 Lubbock 3,079 60.79% 1,979 39.07% 7 0.14% 1,100 21.72% 5,065 Lynn 1,268 62.49% 754 37.16% 7 0.34% 514 25.33% 2,029 McCulloch 1,294 63.59% 741 36.41% 0 0.00% 553 27.17% 2,035 McLennan 5,744 51.81% 5,330 48.07% 13 0.12% 414 3.73% 11,087 McMullen 96 50.00% 94 48.96% 2 1.04% 2 1.04% 192 Madison 364 44.61% 452 55.39% 0 0.00% -88 -10.78% 816 Marion 443 40.90% 640 59.10% 0 0.00% -197 -18.19% 1,083 Martin 330 60.77% 213 39.23% 0 0.00% 117 21.55% 543 Mason 807 76.64% 244 23.17% 2 0.19% 563 53.47% 1,053 Matagorda 1,194 58.85% 829 40.86% 6 0.30% 365 17.99% 2,029 Maverick 311 63.34% 180 36.66% 0 0.00% 131 26.68% 491 Medina 1,243 46.94% 1,400 52.87% 5 0.19% -157 -5.93% 2,648 Menard 589 71.57% 234 28.43% 0 0.00% 355 43.13% 823 Midland 347 49.57% 350 50.00% 3 0.43% -3 -0.43% 700 Milam 1,270 30.86% 2,842 69.05% 4 0.10% -1,572 -38.19% 4,116 Mills 774 63.65% 442 36.35% 0 0.00% 332 27.30% 1,216 Mitchell 1,099 59.57% 746 40.43% 0 0.00% 353 19.13% 1,845 Montague 1,519 51.13% 1,452 48.87% 0 0.00% 67 2.26% 2,971 Montgomery 613 40.36% 905 59.58% 1 0.07% -292 -19.22% 1,519 Moore 87 41.23% 124 58.77% 0 0.00% -37 -17.54% 211 Morris 287 26.90% 780 73.10% 0 0.00% -493 -46.20% 1,067 Motley 450 56.32% 349 43.68% 0 0.00% 101 12.64% 799 Nacogdoches 822 30.41% 1,879 69.52% 2 0.07% -1,057 -39.10% 2,703 Navarro 3,341 47.80% 3,648 52.20% 0 0.00% -307 -4.39% 6,989 Newton 397 41.27% 564 58.63% 1 0.10% -167 -17.36% 962 Nolan 1,475 58.76% 1,035 41.24% 0 0.00% 440 17.53% 2,510 Nueces 2,481 45.36% 2,985 54.58% 3 0.05% -504 -9.22% 5,469 Ochiltree 556 67.31% 270 32.69% 0 0.00% 286 34.62% 826 Oldham 172 52.28% 157 47.72% 0 0.00% 15 4.56% 329 Orange 919 42.43% 1,247 57.57% 0 0.00% -328 -15.14% 2,166 Palo Pinto 2,001 63.28% 1,161 36.72% 0 0.00% 840 26.57% 3,162 Panola 420 24.21% 1,312 75.62% 3 0.17% -892 -51.41% 1,735 Parker 2,178 66.24% 1,110 33.76% 0 0.00% 1,068 32.48% 3,288 Parmer 620 65.75% 315 33.40% 8 0.85% 305 32.34% 943 Pecos 524 47.99% 562 51.47% 6 0.55% -38 -3.48% 1,092 Polk 508 33.73% 994 66.00% 4 0.27% -486 -32.27% 1,506 Potter 3,627 57.90% 2,637 42.10% 0 0.00% 990 15.80% 6,264 Presidio 254 44.64% 315 55.36% 0 0.00% -61 -10.72% 569 Rains 202 26.90% 544 72.44% 5 0.67% -342 -45.54% 751 Randall 733 52.66% 659 47.34% 0 0.00% 74 5.32% 1,392 Reagan 387 62.82% 229 37.18% 0 0.00% 158 25.65% 616 Real 479 83.02% 98 16.98% 0 0.00% 381 66.03% 577 Red River 1,172 41.30% 1,666 58.70% 0 0.00% -494 -17.41% 2,838 Reeves 344 46.61% 394 53.39% 0 0.00% -50 -6.78% 738 Refugio 383 36.34% 671 63.66% 0 0.00% -288 -27.32% 1,054 Roberts 243 70.03% 104 29.97% 0 0.00% 139 40.06% 347 Robertson 751 33.54% 1,487 66.41% 1 0.04% -736 -32.87% 2,239 Rockwall 289 25.37% 850 74.63% 0 0.00% -561 -49.25% 1,139 Runnels 1,645 52.26% 1,494 47.46% 9 0.29% 151 4.80% 3,148 Rusk 1,033 37.36% 1,732 62.64% 0 0.00% -699 -25.28% 2,765 Sabine 419 34.18% 807 65.82% 0 0.00% -388 -31.65% 1,226 San Augustine 467 36.26% 821 63.74% 0 0.00% -354 -27.48% 1,288 San Jacinto 296 37.00% 503 62.88% 1 0.13% -207 -25.88% 800 San Patricio 1,388 70.56% 579 29.44% 0 0.00% 809 41.13% 1,967 San Saba 682 47.56% 752 52.44% 0 0.00% -70 -4.88% 1,434 Schleicher 227 62.36% 137 37.64% 0 0.00% 90 24.73% 364 Scurry 1,597 77.49% 462 22.42% 2 0.10% 1,135 55.07% 2,061 Shackelford 558 51.10% 533 48.81% 1 0.09% 25 2.29% 1,092 Shelby 676 25.53% 1,961 74.06% 11 0.42% -1,285 -48.53% 2,648 Sherman 248 64.42% 137 35.58% 0 0.00% 111 28.83% 385 Smith 3,493 59.85% 2,343 40.15% 0 0.00% 1,150 19.71% 5,836 Somervell 241 63.93% 136 36.07% 0 0.00% 105 27.85% 377 Starr 79 9.69% 736 90.31% 0 0.00% -657 -80.61% 815 Stephens 1,789 60.60% 1,163 39.40% 0 0.00% 626 21.21% 2,952 Sterling 122 42.21% 167 57.79% 0 0.00% -45 -15.57% 289 Stonewall 442 46.92% 500 53.08% 0 0.00% -58 -6.16% 942 Sutton 290 75.92% 92 24.08% 0 0.00% 198 51.83% 382 Swisher 887 70.34% 374 29.66% 0 0.00% 513 40.68% 1,261 Tarrant 20,481 68.99% 9,208 31.01% 0 0.00% 11,273 37.97% 29,689 Taylor 4,050 68.07% 1,891 31.78% 9 0.15% 2,159 36.29% 5,950 Terrell 364 80.71% 85 18.85% 2 0.44% 279 61.86% 451 Terry 622 60.45% 407 39.55% 0 0.00% 215 20.89% 1,029 Throckmorton 703 69.81% 304 30.19% 0 0.00% 399 39.62% 1,007 Titus 469 28.99% 1,149 71.01% 0 0.00% -680 -42.03% 1,618 Tom Green 2,618 63.11% 1,528 36.84% 2 0.05% 1,090 26.28% 4,148 Travis 4,847 51.83% 4,487 47.98% 17 0.18% 360 3.85% 9,351 Trinity 456 39.93% 686 60.07% 0 0.00% -230 -20.14% 1,142 Tyler 298 30.88% 666 69.02% 1 0.10% -368 -38.13% 965 Upshur 649 29.37% 1,553 70.27% 8 0.36% -904 -40.90% 2,210 Upton 270 58.82% 189 41.18% 0 0.00% 81 17.65% 459 Uvalde 1,224 62.10% 747 37.90% 0 0.00% 477 24.20% 1,971 Val Verde 854 57.94% 620 42.06% 0 0.00% 234 15.88% 1,474 Van Zandt 1,502 45.35% 1,789 54.02% 21 0.63% -287 -8.67% 3,312 Victoria 663 27.94% 1,710 72.06% 0 0.00% -1,047 -44.12% 2,373 Walker 488 39.51% 747 60.49% 0 0.00% -259 -20.97% 1,235 Waller 376 42.68% 504 57.21% 1 0.11% -128 -14.53% 881 Ward 216 45.76% 256 54.24% 0 0.00% -40 -8.47% 472 Washington 275 9.94% 2,491 90.06% 0 0.00% -2,216 -80.12% 2,766 Webb 767 32.16% 1,615 67.71% 3 0.13% -848 -35.56% 2,385 Wharton 1,151 42.69% 1,545 57.31% 0 0.00% -394 -14.61% 2,696 Wheeler 1,038 57.86% 750 41.81% 6 0.33% 288 16.05% 1,794 Wichita 7,226 59.82% 4,853 40.18% 0 0.00% 2,373 19.65% 12,079 Wilbarger 1,590 52.30% 1,447 47.60% 3 0.10% 143 4.70% 3,040 Willacy 389 49.55% 396 50.45% 0 0.00% -7 -0.89% 785 Williamson 1,833 33.14% 3,689 66.70% 9 0.16% -1,856 -33.56% 5,531 Wilson 622 29.33% 1,499 70.67% 0 0.00% -877 -41.35% 2,121 Winkler 162 34.32% 310 65.68% 0 0.00% -148 -31.36% 472 Wise 2,141 66.20% 1,093 33.80% 0 0.00% 1,048 32.41% 3,234 Wood 1,161 41.38% 1,645 58.62% 0 0.00% -484 -17.25% 2,806 Yoakum 86 56.58% 66 43.42% 0 0.00% 20 13.16% 152 Young 1,826 58.88% 1,275 41.12% 0 0.00% 551 17.77% 3,101 Zapata 19 6.03% 296 93.97% 0 0.00% -277 -87.94% 315 Zavala 571 71.38% 229 28.63% 0 0.00% 342 42.75% 800Totals372,32451.88%344,54248.00%8670.12%27,7823.87%717,733 Analysis However, with all other prominent Democrats sitting the election out,Warren, Kenneth F.; Encyclopedia of U.S. campaigns, elections, and electoral behavior: A-M, Volume 1, p. 620 1412954894 the party nominated Al Smith, four-term Governor of New York as its nominee for 1928, with little opposition, despite disagreement among Texas Democrats like Governor Moody, plus "Pa" and "Ma" Ferguson.Campbell, Randolph B.; Gone to Texas: A History of the Lone Star State, p. 376 0195138422 Smith had been the favorite for the 1924 nomination, but had lost due to opposition to his Catholic faith and "wet" views on Prohibition: he wished to repeal or modify the Volstead Act. Once Smith was nominated – despite his attempt to dispel fears by nominating "dry" Southern Democrat Joseph T. Robinson as his running mateNelson, Michael (1991); Historic documents on presidential elections, 1787-1988, p. 296 – extreme fear ensued in the South, which mostly had little to no experience of the Catholic immigrants from southern and eastern Europe who were Smith's local constituency. Southern fundamentalist Protestants believed that Smith would allow papal and priestly leadership in the United States, which Protestantism was a reaction against.Whisenhunt, Donald W.; President Herbert Hoover, p. 69 1600214762 There was also much opposition to Smith's support for repealing Prohibition, most notably from minister J. Frank Norris, who became the center of the anti-Smith campaign, saying that Texas is the battleground for this, the most titanic struggle in the political, moral and religious life of the nation.Marty, Martin E.; Modern American Religion, Volume 2: The Noise of Conflict, 1919-1941, p. 244 The Southern Baptist Convention similarly said that We enter into a sacred covenant and solemn pledge that we will support for the office of President, or any other office, only such men as stand for our present order of prohibition.Maxwell, Angie and Shields, Todd G. (editors); Unlocking V.O. Key Jr.: "Southern Politics" for the Twenty-First Century, pp. 17–18 1557289611 Smith's campaign managers responded to this criticism by saying that the "Hoovercrats" were "Republicans, Klansmen and Bolsheviks".Slayton, Robert A.; Empire Statesman: The Rise and Fall of Al Smith; p. 284 0684863022 See also United States presidential elections in Texas Notes References expanded Texas 1928 Category:1928 Texas elections