Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:35:14.254Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Economic Factor in the Roosevelt Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

William F. Ogburn  and
Lolagene C. Coombs
William F. Ogburn
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Lolagene C. Coombs
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It seems to be generaally agreed that Franklin D. Roosevelt is very unpopular with the wealthier groups in society and that he is held to be a very warm friend of the poor. Indeed, it is sometimes asserted that no president since Jefferson has so divided the voters along economic lines as has Roosevelt. Popular opinion on this subject, as on many others, is likely to be exaggerated. In any case, it is well to check by measurement the idea that the rich are against Roosevelt and the poor are for him. This has been done in some of the sample polls. For instance, Fortune finds that the prosperous present about 15 to 20 per cent more opposition to Roosevelt than is found among the poor. Similarly, the Gallup polls have found over twice as much opposition to Roosevelt among the upper third of the population as among the lower third. Where these surveys of opinion on Roosevelt have been presented by social classes, there has been shown, in accordance with popular opinion, this division between the rich and the poor in their attitude toward Roosevelt. But the percentage difference is not quite so large as might be expected.

This difference between the rich and the poor in attitude toward Roosevelt became accentuated around the middle of his first term. It is interesting to inquire into the extent to which those of the lower income groups voted for Roosevelt in 1932 and in 1936.

Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , August 1940 , pp. 719 - 727
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1940

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ogburn, W. F. and Hill, Estelle, “Income Classes and the Roosevelt Vote in 1932,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 50, pp. 186–193 (June, 1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 The counties for all the states used in this study were selected on the basis of population (those used ranged between 15,000 and 35,000), and on the basis of the per cent those occupied in business and industry were of the total occupied person nel of the county (for the counties used, this per cent was not less than 30 and not more than 65).

3 The index was constructed by the familiar method of combining the deviations from the mean of each series after it has been divided by the standard deviation of the series. In constructing the wage index, each part was weighted by the proportion of the population occupied in each type of work.

4 This index is based on the proportion of the population having telephones, radios, and paying income taxes, each county being expressed as a proportion of the total for the nation.

5 The correlations between age and the Roosevelt vote for 1932 and 1936, respectively, were: Pennsylvania, –.30 and –.54; Ohio, –.32 and –.56; Illinois, +.04 and +.06; Indiana, –.44 and –.53; Kansas, –.25 and –.74; Iowa, –.40 and –.57; Nebraska, –.19 and –.49; California, +.01 and –.04.

6 American Institute of Public Opinion, Dec., 5, 1939.

7 The partial correlations for the various states are: Pennsylvania, –.52; Ohio, –.57; Illinois, –.14; Indiana, –.49; Kansas, –.71; Iowa, –.50; Nebraska, –.36; California, .00 (figures for 1936).

8 The partial correlations for 1932 and 1936 respectively are: Pennsylvania, +.15 and +.10; Ohio, +.23 and –.11; Illinois, –.67 and –.67; Indiana, –.34 and –.30; Kansas, –.16 and –.22; Iowa, –.21 and –.03; Nebraska, +.12 and +.38; California, –.18 and –.17.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.