The NYT's Not-Really-Complete History

This is interesting.

The NYT asks why the Republicans don't "own" Big Cities.

With the possible exception of Houston or maybe Omaha, it’s all but inconceivable that Mr. Romney will carry any of those cities. And that’s due in good part to the man Hoover defeated, more than 80 years ago.

The rise of Alfred E. Smith to the top of the Democratic Party confirmed a sea change in American life. Smith was not simply the first Catholic to lead a major-party ticket. He was also a quintessentially urban candidate, like no one who has ever seriously contended for the presidency before or since. 

Maybe that's one part.

But if one reads the history of the Progressive Movement in Wisconsin, you get another idea altogether. 

(Too bad the "search" box is no longer present on this blogspot, as I mentioned this a while ago but can't find the reference-post any longer.)  UPDATE:  Used "Bing", got what I wanted here!!

In a nutshell, the original Wisconsin Progressives were Republicans.  When those (R) Progressives suggested that the feeble-minded should be neutered, the Catholic Bishops made it very clear that the (R) Party was a no-no to Catholics; ergo, the Catholic vote--largely concentrated in ethnic ghettos in the cities--went (D).

(Since the NYT doesn't think religion has anything to do with anything, it's no surprise that they blamed it all on a cigar-chomping machine Catholic, of course.)