The 1932 Campaign: An Analysis.

Peel, Roy V.; Donnelly, Thomas C.

doi:10.2307/2262331

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the principal changes has been in the relationship between candidates, incumbents, and their political parties. In the past, even with the loose coalitions that parties represented, presidential candidates and the president could defend coalitional support negotiated with state and local party leaders (Peel and Donnelly, 1973).…”

Section: Recent Trends In Selection That Contribute To Divergent Coalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electoral Governing Coalitions in the Presidency: A Theory and a Case Study

Seligman

1983

Congress & the Presidency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Recent Trends In Selection That Contribute To Divergent Coalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electoral Governing Coalitions in the Presidency: A Theory and a Case Study

Seligman

1983

Congress & the Presidency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…51 Such errors notwithstanding, and even accounting for the evasions that invariably characterize political campaigns, the Democratic effort to persuade voters to support the New Deal, together with the Republican determination fiercely to oppose the New Deal policies as not only unwise and unworkable but un-American, ensured, as political scientists wrote in 1935, that "the masses … believed that the major parties really did have contrasting and opposing programs." 52 Nor were the masses confused about which candidate wanted to increase the scope of government to provide aid to individual citizens, and which one believed that to undertake such an expansion risked the onset of Bolshevism. Roosevelt stood for a New Deal, and Hoover opposed it.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The New Deal Was on the Ballot in 1932

Rauchway¹

2019

Mod. Am. Hist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the 1932 campaign, Franklin Roosevelt explicitly committed himself to nearly all of what would become the important programs of the New Deal. In the months before his March 4, 1933, inauguration, he made his proposed policies even clearer. Yet many Americans have forgotten this clarity of purpose, led in large measure by histories of the New Deal and biographies of Roosevelt that echo old misconceptions of this critical election. Such texts are far more likely to describe Roosevelt's campaign as so devoid of substance and full only of “sunny generalities” that at the time he took the oath of office his “plans remained largely unknown to the public.” He had “no larger philosophy or grand design.” He stood only for “action, any action, with little or no thought given to the long-term consequences.” One historian recently declared, “The notion that when Franklin Roosevelt became president he had a plan in his head called the New Deal is a myth that no serious scholar has ever believed.”

show abstract

Radio in presidential campaigns: The early years (1924–1932)

Clark¹

1962

Journal of Broadcasting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 1932 Campaign: An Analysis.

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Electoral Governing Coalitions in the Presidency: A Theory and a Case Study

Electoral Governing Coalitions in the Presidency: A Theory and a Case Study

The New Deal Was on the Ballot in 1932

Radio in presidential campaigns: The early years (1924–1932)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About