The year was 1928. America was vibrating with the hum of the Roaring Twenties, a decade defined by jazz, illegal gin, and a stock market that looked like it would never stop climbing. When people ask who ran for president in 1928, they often expect a dry list of names from a history book. But honestly? This election was a massive cultural collision. It wasn't just about policy. It was about religion, Prohibition, and whether a "city slicker" from New York could lead a country that still had its heart in the rural Midwest.
Herbert Hoover and Al Smith. Those are your main players.
On one side, you had Hoover, the "Great Engineer," a man who seemed to embody the limitless prosperity of the era. On the other, Al Smith, the "Happy Warrior," a tobacco-chewing, gravel-voiced Governor of New York who wore a brown derby and spoke with a thick Lower East Side accent. They were opposites in every way that mattered to voters back then.
The Republican Juggernaut: Herbert Hoover
Herbert Hoover didn't have to fight very hard for the Republican nomination. Why would he? The GOP had presided over years of explosive economic growth. Calvin Coolidge, the sitting president, famously chose not to run again with a characteristically blunt note: "I do not choose to run for President in nineteen twenty-eight." That opened the door wide for Hoover.
Hoover was a bit of a superstar. He wasn't a career politician in the traditional sense. He was a self-made millionaire who had organized massive humanitarian efforts during World War I, literally saving millions from starvation in Europe. To the average voter in 1928, he was the smartest guy in the room. He represented "rugged individualism," a term he popularized. He believed that the government shouldn't meddle too much in the economy because, well, the economy was doing great. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?
His running mate was Charles Curtis, a Senator from Kansas. Here is a fun fact: Curtis was the first person with significant Native American ancestry to serve as Vice President. He was a member of the Kaw Nation. In a year defined by some pretty ugly prejudices, Curtis’s place on the ticket was a fascinating anomaly.
The Democrat Who Broke the Mold: Al Smith
Then there’s Al Smith. If you want to understand who ran for president in 1928, you have to understand why Smith was so controversial. He was the first Roman Catholic to be nominated by a major party. In 2026, that sounds like a non-issue, but in 1928? It was a scandal.
🔗 Read more: Nate Silver Trump Approval Rating: Why the 2026 Numbers Look So Different
Anti-Catholic sentiment was rampant. The Ku Klux Klan was still a powerful force in the South and the Midwest, and they spread wild rumors that if Smith won, the Pope would basically move into the White House and run the country. It sounds ridiculous now, but it was a genuine hurdle for his campaign.
Smith was also a "Wet." In the lingo of the time, that meant he wanted to repeal Prohibition. He thought the ban on alcohol was a failure that only fueled organized crime. Hoover, meanwhile, called Prohibition a "noble experiment." This "Wet" vs. "Dry" debate was the centerpiece of the 1928 campaign. Smith’s running mate was Joseph T. Robinson, a Senator from Arkansas, chosen specifically to try and keep the Southern wing of the Democratic Party from abandoning a Catholic, anti-Prohibition New Yorker.
The Third-Party Contenders You Never Hear About
Everyone focuses on Hoover and Smith, but they weren't the only ones on the ballot. If we're being thorough about who ran for president in 1928, we have to mention the smaller parties. They didn't stand a chance, but they represented the fringes of American frustration.
- Norman Thomas (Socialist Party): A former Presbyterian minister, Thomas took over the mantle from Eugene V. Debs. He was articulate and intellectual. He talked about things that seemed radical then but are standard now, like old-age pensions and unemployment insurance. He got about 267,000 votes.
- William Z. Foster (Communist Party): This was the height of the First Red Scare's aftermath. Foster didn't get much traction, but his presence reflected the growing labor unrest that the stock market boom was hiding.
- Verne L. Reynolds (Socialist Labor Party): A smaller, more orthodox Marxist group.
- William F. Varney (Prohibition Party): Because some people thought the Republicans weren't being strict enough about booze.
Why the 1928 Election Was a Turning Point
It’s easy to look at the map and see a landslide. Hoover won 444 electoral votes to Smith’s 87. Hoover even broke into the "Solid South," winning states like Texas, Florida, and Virginia that hadn't gone Republican since Reconstruction.
But look closer.
Smith won the twelve largest cities in the country. He mobilized the immigrant vote, the urban working class, and the Catholic community. He shifted the Democratic Party's base from the rural South to the urban North. He basically built the foundation that Franklin D. Roosevelt would use four years later to create the New Deal coalition.
💡 You might also like: Weather Forecast Lockport NY: Why Today’s Snow Isn’t Just Hype
The 1928 election was the last hurrah for the old world. A year after Hoover was inaugurated, the stock market crashed. The "Great Engineer" who was supposed to manage prosperity suddenly found himself presiding over the Great Depression. The very things that made him popular in 1928—his belief in limited government and his reliance on private charity—made him look hopelessly out of touch by 1932.
The Bitter Campaign Trail
The 1928 race was nasty. Truly.
Because Smith was from the Lower East Side, he had a "dese, dem, and dose" accent. He didn't sound "presidential" to the folks in rural Iowa. Radio was becoming a big deal, and for the first time, people across the country could actually hear the candidates. Smith’s voice didn't translate well over the airwaves. Hoover, while not a great orator, sounded more "standard."
Whispering campaigns were everywhere. People circulated photos of the Holland Tunnel, claiming it was a secret underwater passage Smith was building to connect the U.S. to the Vatican. Honestly, the level of disinformation was staggering. Smith tried to fight back with humor and grit, but the combination of religious bigotry and a booming economy under Republican rule was too much to overcome.
Key Stats and Hard Data
To really grasp the scale of Hoover's victory, you have to see the numbers.
Hoover brought in over 21 million popular votes. Smith had about 15 million. That’s a huge gap, but remember, Smith’s 15 million was the most any Democrat had ever received up to that point. He brought people to the polls who had never voted before.
📖 Related: Economics Related News Articles: What the 2026 Headlines Actually Mean for Your Wallet
The voter turnout was nearly 57%, which was quite high for the era. People were energized. They were either terrified of a Catholic president or they were desperate to get their beer back. There wasn't much middle ground.
Actionable Insights: Lessons from 1928
What can we actually take away from the 1928 election today?
First, demographics are destiny. Al Smith lost the battle but started the war. By capturing the cities, he signaled a shift in American power that would dominate politics for the next fifty years. If you’re analyzing modern elections, always look at where the "losing" candidate is gaining ground. It might tell you who will win the next decade.
Second, economic prosperity covers a multitude of sins. Hoover wasn't a particularly charismatic man. He was stiff and a bit aloof. But because people had money in their pockets, they didn't care. It’s a reminder that the "kitchen table issues" usually trump personality—until the economy breaks.
Third, the medium matters. Smith was a creature of the podium and the street corner. He couldn't master the radio. In every era, there is a new technology that candidates must conquer. In 1928 it was radio; later it was TV, and now it’s social media algorithms.
If you want to dive deeper into this specific moment in time, I highly recommend looking into the following:
- Research the "Smith Revolution": Look for academic papers on how the 1928 urban vote paved the way for FDR.
- Read "The Happy Warrior": Many biographies of Al Smith capture the sheer grit of his campaign against impossible odds.
- Study Hoover's 1928 Campaign Speeches: See how he defined "rugged individualism." It’s the DNA of modern conservative economic thought.
The election of 1928 wasn't just a footnote. It was the moment the 20th century truly began to take its political shape. Understanding who ran for president in 1928 gives you a roadmap for understanding why American politics looks the way it does today.