1. See Alex Isenstadt, “GOP Governors Call Out Trump after Midterm Drubbing,” Politico, November 30, 2018, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/30/trump-midterms-republican-party-governors-rga-1034609; Associated Press, “Raimondo to Head Up Democratic Governors Association,” The Westerly Sun, December 2, 2018, https://www.thewesterlysun.com/news/latest-news/raimondo-to-head-up-democratic-governors-association/article_cdf40ea0-f60d-11e8-b15d-1f47f64109eb.html; “New: Former IGT Chairman Sweitzer Named Treasurer of Democratic Governors Association,” GoLocalProv News Team, December 12, 2018, http://www.golocalprov.com/politics/new-former-igt-chairman-sweitzer-named-treasurer-of-democratic-governors-as.

2. James Hohmann, “The Daily 202: ‘We Won Women.’ GOP Governors Who Survived the Blue Wave in Blue States Share Advice,” The Washington Post, November 29, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/11/29/daily-202-we-won-women-gop-governors-who-survived-the-blue-wave-in-blue-states-share-advice/5bff5cd91b326b60d128008d/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ec35197846ce.

3. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the RGA spent nearly $180 million in the 2018 midterm elections alone. The DGA spent just under $100 million. Center for Responsive Politics, Republican Governors Assn: Overview, https://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtedetail.php?ein=113655877&cycle=2018; Center for Responsive Politics, Democratic Governors Assn: Overview, https://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtedetail.php?ein=521304889.

4. See, for instance, Cotter, Cornelius P., Gibson, James L., Bibby, John F., and Huckshorn, Robert J., Party Organizations in American Politics (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

5. See, for instance, Milkis, Sidney M., Political Parties and Constitutional Government: Remaking American Democracy (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Milkis, Sidney M., The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System Since the New Deal (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar. See also, Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. See, for instance, Ceaser, James W., Presidential Selection: Theory and Development (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lunch, William, The Nationalization of American Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. The DGA, in its modern form, was created in 1983, and was chaired by Governor Charles S. Robb of Virginia, who also chaired the Democratic Leadership Council and was a leading voice of the New Democratic movement within the Democratic Party. Robb also served in the U.S. Senate.

8. See Aldrich, John H., Why Parties? A Second Look (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 281–87, 302–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. See Shafer, Byron and Wagner, Regina L., The Long War Over Party Structure: Democratic Representation and Policy Responsiveness in American Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. For a summary statement on political entrepreneurship in APD, see Sheingate, Adam, “Institutional Dynamics and American Political Development,” Annual Review of Political Science 17 (2014): 461–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John, “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics,” Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 3 (September 2012): 571CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Here I depart from the interest-based account of parties put forward in Bawn et al., “A Theory of Political Parties,” 571–97, and DiSalvo, Daniel, Engines of Change: Party Factions in American Politics, 1868–2010 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Rather than root gubernatorial action solely in interest group desires or predominantly in ideological disputes, I root gubernatorial action in electoral and policy motivations and in the particulars of the historical context governors found themselves in the 1960s.

13. Aldrich, Why Parties? 16–17.

14. Others have emphasized the importance of party cohesion. E. E. Schattschneider, and actors within the parties, during the mid-twentieth century advocated for more “responsible” parties that would better provide choices to voters in elections. Some argued that there was not “a dime's worth of difference” between the parties by the mid-twentieth century. The 1950 APSA report recommended a series of reforms to the functioning of the parties, including recommendations for changes to the party-as-organization.

15. Lunch, The Nationalization of American Politics, 3. In discussing the nationalization of the electorate, Claggett et al. note that “the current electorate is seen as more attuned to national level events, personalities, and issues, and hence is more homogeneous in its behavior than the electorate of the nineteenth century or the first half of the twentieth century.” Claggett, William, Flanigan, William, and Zingale, Nancy, “Nationalization of the American Electorate,” The American Political Science Review 78, no. 1 (1984): 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Hopkins, Daniel, The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The process of the nationalization of the electorate was not complete during this period, but the concerns of the governors indicate their recognition that such a process was underway.

16. Huckshorn, Robert J., Gibson, James L., Cotter, Cornelius P., and Bibby, John F., “Party Integration and Party Organizational Strength,” The Journal of Politics 48, no. 4 (1986): 978CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. The fullest treatment of the RGA and the DGA thus far has been by Jensen, Jennifer M., The Governors’ Lobby: Federal-State Relations Offices and Governors Associations in Washington (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2016), 158–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Jensen, Jennifer M., “Governors and Partisan Polarization in the Federal Arena,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 47, no. 3 (2017): 314–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. For classic work on this, see Cotter, Cornelius P. and Hennessey, Bernard C., Politics without Power: The National Party Committees (New York: Transaction, 1964)Google Scholar. For more recent work, see, for instance, Conley, Brian M., “The Politics of Party Renewal: The ‘Service Party’ and the Goldwater Republican Right,” Studies in American Political Development 27, no. 1 (April 2013): 51–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Galvin, Daniel J., Presidential Party Building: Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Galvin, Daniel J., “The Transformation of Political Institutions: Investments in Institutional Resources and Gradual Change in the National Party Committees,” Studies in American Political Development 26, no 1. (April 2012): 50–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klinghard, Daniel, The Nationalization of American Political Parties, 1880–1896 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19. Heersink, Boris, “Party Brands and the Democratic and Republican National Committees, 1952–1976,” Studies in American Political Development 32, no. 1 (April 2018): 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. Galvin, “The Transformation of Political Institutions,” 51.

21. Shafter and Wagner, Long War Over Party Structure, 3–10. See also Mayhew, David R., Placing Parties in American Politics: Organization, Electoral Settings, and Government Activity in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. See Grossman, Matt and Hopkins, David A., Asymmetric Polarization: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. See, for instance, Bulman-Pozen, Jessica, “Partisan Federalism,” The Harvard Law Review 127, no. 4 (2014): 1078–1146Google Scholar.

24. Fenno, Richard, Congressmen in Committees (New York: Little, Brown, 1973)Google Scholar; Mayhew, David R., Congress: The Electoral Connection (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

25. Aldrich, Why Parties? 47. See also Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957)Google Scholar; Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald, The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960)Google Scholar. At the very least, governors bear party labels. Since 2010, for instance, only one governor, Bill Walker (AK), has won a race as an independent.

26. On ambition theory, see Schlesinger, Joseph A., Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966)Google Scholar; Joseph A. Schlesinger, “The Primary Goals of Political Parties: A Clarification of Positive Theory,” American Political Science Review 69 (September 1975): 840–49. See also Aldrich, Why Parties? 17.

27. Charles “Chuck” S. Robb, “Interview with Chuck Robb by Brien Williams,” August 4, 2009, George J. Mitchell Oral History Project: Special Collections and Archives, p. 36, https://digitalcommons.bowdoin.edu/mitchelloralhistory/36.

28. Robertson, David Brian, Federalism and the Making of America (New York: Rutledge, 2012), 43Google Scholar. See also David Truman, “Federalism and the Party System,” in American Federalism in Perspective, ed. Aaron B. Wildavsky (Boston: Little, Brown, 1962).

29. On this point, see Sabato, Larry J., Goodbye to Good Time Charlie: The American Governor Transformed, 1950–1975 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 1978), 63Google Scholar.

30. Ibid., 85.

31. Donald R. Sprengel, “Patterns of Organization in Gubernatorial Staffs,” in Gubernatorial Staffs: Functions and Political Profiles, ed. Donald R. Sprengel (Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1969), 308–30.

32. Council of State Governments, The Book of the States (Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 1961), 116, https://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/system/files/bos_1960_4.pdf.

33. Sabato, Goodbye to Goodtime Charlie, 89.

34. Hopkins, The Increasingly United States, 67–68.

35. See, for instance, Derthick, Martha and Dinan, John, “Progressivism and Federalism,” in Keeping the Compound Republic: Essays on American Federalism, ed. Derthick, Martha (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001). 107Google Scholar.

36. Robertson, Federalism and the Making of America, 137, fig. 8.2.

37. See, for instance, Haskins, Ron, “Governors and the Development of American Social Policy,” in A Legacy of Innovation: Governors and Public Policy, ed., Sribnick, Ethan G. (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 76–103Google Scholar.

38. See also Jensen, The Governors’ Lobby.

39. As Jensen demonstrates, during and after the New Deal individual states also established separate offices lobbying the national government for resources as well. See ibid.

40. William Anderson, “The Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the United States Federal System,” The Journal of Politics 18, no. 2 (1956): 217.

41. Bruce D. McDowell, “Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in 1996: The End of an Era,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 27, no. 2 (1997): 111.

42. “Removal of Manion Demanded by A.D.A.,” The New York Times, October 21, 1953, 24.

43. See McDowell, “Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in 1996,” 1127; Anderson, “The Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the United States Federal System,” 211–31.

44. Aldrich, Why Parties? 276.

45. See, for instance, David S. Broder, The Party's Over: The Failure of Politics in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1972); Martin P. Wattenberg, The Decline of American Political Parties: 1952–1988. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); Martin P. Wattenberg, The Rise of Candidate-Centered Campaigns: Presidential Elections of the 1980s (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990).

46. Milkis, Political Parties and Constitutional Government, 9.

47. Byron Shafer, “The Pure Partisan Institution: National Party Conventions as Research Sites,” in The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups, ed., L. Sandy Maisel and Jeffrey M. Berry (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 272.

48. Here I make a distinction between direct control over state delegations by party bosses and more indirect influences over nomination contests discussed by the UCLA school of parties. See Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller, The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations before and after Reform (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 2008).

49. In the early twentieth century, the population of African Americans in Northeastern and other urban centers swelled thanks to the Great Migration. The percentage of African Americans living in the South dropped from 90 percent in 1900 to just 60 percent by 1960. See, for instance, James N. Gregory, The Southern Diaspora: How the Great Migrations of Black and White Southerners Transformed America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007); Nicholas Lemann, The Promised Land: The Great Black Migration and How It Changed America (New York: Knopf, 1991).

50. As Hopkins notes, “the story for the South does appear to be one of increasing nationalization, with a pause in the late 1960s and 1970s when Republican presidential candidates were competitive while Republican gubernatorial candidates were less so” (Hopkins, The Increasingly United States, 46).

51. Republicans ran a slate of gubernatorial candidates in 1960 and 1961 in the region but lost every race, often in landslides. In 1960 and 1962, for instance, Orval Faubus (AR) cruised to reelection, winning 69 and 73 percent of the vote, respectively. Wallace, in 1962, faced only token opposition. In 1964, Democratic gubernatorial candidates Faubus, Connally, and Dan Moore (NC), won substantial victories.

52. On partisan realignment in the South, see Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler, Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 140–63. See also Matthew Levendusky, The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).

53. Democrats, according to the Pew Research Center, had a seventeen-point advantage in terms of the public's partisan identification in the aftermath of the 1960 presidential election. Senator John F. Kennedy's narrow victory over Nixon returned the White House to the Democratic Party, which retained large majorities in the House of Representatives (262–175) and the Senate (64–36). Control of state legislative chambers was also notably slanted in favor of the Democrats. Pew Research Center, “Trends in Party Identification, 1939–2014,” April 7, 2015, http://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/.

54. DiSalvo, Engines of Change, 43.

55. Ibid., 74–77.

56. Ibid., 76.

57. This was partly rooted in changes that affected state law and party policies. For instance, whites-only primaries were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1944's Smith v. Allwright decision. The opening of Democratic primary elections to African American voters and increased competitiveness of Republicans in the South altered the playing field in which Democratic governors and gubernatorial candidates operated over the long run but did not result in immediate changes to the competitiveness of gubernatorial elections by the early 1960s. The Democratic primary continued to be the way of obtaining elected office. Voting rights remained restrictive until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. See, for instance, Perlman, Michael, Struggle for Mastery: Disenfranchisement in the South, 1888–1908 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001)Google Scholar. See also V. O. Key Jr., Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York: Knopf, 1949); C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877–1913 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951); Boris Heersink and Jeffery A. Jenkins, “Southern Delegates and Republican National Convention Politics, 1880–1928,” Studies in American Political Development 29, no. 1 (2015): 68–88.

58. Schickler, Eric, Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932–1965 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016), 150Google Scholar.

59. Ibid., 152. Schickler finds that by the 1940s, northern Democratic parties had become more liberal, on average, than their Republican counterparts in the region on voting rights, fair employment practices, and housing policies. See pp. 156–65.

60. Williams later served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under JFK and appointed the first African American judge in Michigan's history.

61. In 1936, the national platform largely discussed federalism outside the context of civil rights: “The Republican platform proposes to meet many pressing national problems solely by action of the separate States. We know that drought, dust storms, floods, minimum wages, maximum hours, child labor, and working conditions in industry, monopolistic and unfair business practices cannot be adequately handled exclusively by 48 separate State legislatures, 48 separate State administrations, and 48 separate State courts. Transactions and activities which inevitably overflow State boundaries call for both State and Federal treatment.” American Presidency Project, 1936 Democratic Party Platform, June 23, 1936, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1936-democratic-party-platform.

62. American Presidency Project, 1940 Democratic Party Platform, July 15, 1940, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1940-democratic-party-platform. FDR also engaged in “purge campaign” around this time, which, while not totally successful, pitted the national administration against conservatives who had challenged New Deal programs. See Milkis, The President and the Parties, 77–97.

63. American Presidency Project, 1944 Democratic Party Platform, July 19, 1944, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1944-democratic-party-platform.

64. American Presidency Project, 1948 Democratic Party Platform, July 12, 1948, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1948-democratic-party-platform. The 1950s brought a series of mixed signals for Southern Democrats in terms where the national parties stood on civil rights. Adlai Stevenson (IL), a reform-minded governor and the Democratic nominee in 1952 and 1956, chose two Southerners, Senator John Sparkman of Alabama (1952) and Estes Kefauver (TN) in 1956, as his running mates. Sparkman had been an opponent of civil rights, while Estes was a supporter of more progressive legislation on the issue.

65. In this way, the governors’ behavior reflects the argument put forward by Galvin and Klinkner that being in the minority promotes organizational development as a means of obtaining a majority. See Galvin, Presidential Party Building.

66. The Republican Governors Association: A Case for a Third Force, a Ripon Society Report with Recommendations to the Republican Governors Meeting in Denver, December 4–5, 1964, John H. Chafee Gubernatorial and Secretary of the Navy Papers, 1962–1975, box 99, folder 748, p. 2, Special Collections, University of Rhode Island.

67. Ibid., 3.

68. Letter from Mark O. Hatfield to William E. Miller, July 14, 1963, Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 11, folder: Republican Governors’ Association Correspondence, 1963–1966, Idaho Historical Society.

69. Bailey received credentials to be part of the Connecticut delegation despite his position in the DNC. While administration officials regularly participated in NGC meetings, officials employed by the national parties did not.

70. Proceedings of the Governors’ Conference 1963: Fifty-Fifth Annual Meeting (Chicago: The Governors’ Conference, 1963), 15.

71. Proceedings of the Governors’ Conference 1962: Fifty-Fourth Annual Meeting (Chicago: The Governors’ Conference, 1962), 54.

72. Proceedings of the Governors’ Conference 1963, 21.

73. Ibid., 123.

74. The Republican Governors Association, 5–6.

75. See Tulis, Jeffrey K. and Mellow, Nicole, Legacies of Losing in American Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018), 110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76. Ibid., 105.

77. See, for instance, John A. Andrew III, The Other Side of the Sixties: Young Americans for Freedom and the Rise of Conservative Politics (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997); Wayne Thorburn, A Generation Awakes: Young Americans for Freedom and the Creation of the Conservative Movement (Ottawa: Jameson Books, 2010).

78. Robert H. Phelps, “Goldwater Bloc Greets Governor: Young G.O.P. Applauds Talk but Stays with Senator,” The New York Times, January 24, 1964, 28.

79. “Statement of Republican National Chairman William E. Miller Issued Prior to the First Meeting of the Republican Governors’ Assn,” September 13, 1963, Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 8, folder [unnumbered and untitled], p. 2, Idaho Historical Society.

80. The Republican Governors Association, 10.

81. John C. Skipper, The 1964 Republican Convention: Barry Goldwater and the Beginning of the Conservative Movement (Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, 2016). 150.

82. The following are in the Governor John Love Papers, series 2, box 5, folder 10, Western History Collection WH1084, Denver Public Library: “Love Loses Again in Secret Ballot Move,” July 14, 1964, [newspaper unknown]; Dan Thomasson, “Love Plan for Secret Ballot Soundly Beaten,” July 13, 1964, Rocky Mountain News; and Leonard Larsen, “Colorado Goldwater Boosters ‘Defeat’ Love on Delegate Plan,” Denver Post, July 13, 1964.

83. Joseph A. Loftus, “Eisenhower Acts to Keep Scranton in G.O.P. Contest: They Talk for 85 Minutes in Gettysburg— Governor Agrees to Accept Draft ‘Goldwater Foes Aided’ But Moderates at Meeting of Governors Fear Move May Have Come Late Eisenhower Acts to Aid Scranton,” New York Times, June 7, 1964, p. 1; Skipper, The 1964 Republican Convention, 152–53.

84. “Barry Goldwater, Acceptance Speech, July 16, 1964,” in John C. Skipper, The 1964 Republican Convention: Barry Goldwater and the Beginning of the Conservative Movement (Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, 2016), 216.

85. Confidential Proceedings of Closed Session Meeting of Republican Unity Conference, Hotel Hershey, Hershey, Pennsylvania, Wednesday, August 12, 1964 [transcript of meeting], Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 7, folder [unnumbered]: Republican Governors’ Association 1964, p. 30, Idaho Historical Society.

86. Ibid., 98.

87. Ibid., 38–39.

88. Ibid., 75.

89. Ibid., 104.

90. Ragsdale, Lyn, Vital Statistics on the Presidency (New York. CQ Press, 2014), 119, tbl. 3.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91. Heersink, “Party Brands and the Democratic and Republican National Committees,” 81.

92. Authorized Advance of the Opening Remarks of Governor Robert E. Smylie, Chairman, to the Republican Governors’ Association, December 4, 1964, Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 7, folder [unnumbered]: Republican Governors’ Association 1964, p. 8, Idaho Historical Society.

93. Letter from George Romney to Barry Goldwater, December 21, 1964, Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 7, folder [unnumbered]: Republican Governors’ Association 1964, p. 2, Idaho Historical Society.

94. Ibid., 6.

95. The Denver Declaration: Proposals by the Republican Governors’ Association toward a Party That Wins Elections and Serves America, December 9, 1964, John H. Chafee Gubernatorial and Secretary of the Navy Papers, 1962–1975, box 99, folder 738, p. 1, Special Collections, University of Rhode Island.

96. Henry Gemmill, “Statehouse Slide: Powers of Governors Wane as Federal Programs Grow,” The Wall Street Journal, June 10, 1964, 14.

97. Proceedings of the Governors’ Conference 1964: Fifty-Sixth Annual Meeting (Chicago: The Governors’ Conference, 1964), 39.

98. Ibid., 25.

99. Proceedings of the Governors’ Conference 1965: Fifty-Seventh Annual Meeting (Chicago: The Governors’ Conference, 1965), 2.

100. In this way, the governors contributed to organizational transformation of the parties in two ways discussed by Galvin. See Galvin, “The Transformation of Political Institutions,” 50–70.

101. Aldrich, Why Parties? 287.

102. Ibid., 286.

103. “National party organizations,” Heersink notes, “in the eyes of party leaders, have considerably more relevance than the dominant view among political scientists of the committees being mere service providers would have us believe.” See Heersink, “Party Brands and the Democratic and Republican National Committees,” 82. On the weakness of party organizations, see Cotter and Hennessy, Politics without Power.

104. “Seven Educators Named to Advise GOP Governors,” The Washington Post, March 4, 1965, A29.

105. Joseph Loftus, “G.O.P. Candidates Told How to Sway the Ticket-Splitter,” The New York Times, August 29, 1964, 22.

106. This is in line with studies of more contemporary party networks. See, for instance, Richard M. Skinner, Seth E. Masket, and David A. Dulio, “527 Committees and the Political Party Networks,” American Politics Research 40, no. 1 (2012): 60–84.

107. Confidential Information Memorandum Relative to the Proposal for Conducting Gubernatorial Seminars, [undated]; Memo on the Status of Congressional Districting for 1964, from the Research Division of the Republican National Convention April 8, 1964 [undated]; Memorandum for Members of the Republican Governors’ Association, April 22, 1964, Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 8, folder [unnumbered]: Republican Governors Association Meeting April 10–11, 1964, Washington, DC, Idaho Historical Society.

108. Republican Gubernatorial Candidates’ Campaign Conference, Malibu Motor Hotel, Denver, CO, August 19–20, 1964, Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 8, folder [unnumbered]: August 1964, Republican Gubernatorial Candidates Campaign Conference, Denver, CO, p. 1, Idaho Historical Society.

109. See Klinkner, Philip A., The Losing Parties: Out-Party National Committees, 1956–1993 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Galvin, Presidential Party Building; Heersink, “Party Brands and the Democratic and Republican National Committees.”

110. Gallup Poll (AIPO), November 1964 [survey question], USGALLUP.701.Q011A, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL [distributor], accessed March 2, 2020; Gallup Poll (AIPO), November 1964 [survey question], USGALLUP.701.Q010B, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL [distributor], accessed March 2, 2020. Respondents were allowed to select multiple answers to these questions. Gallup Poll (AIPO), November 1964 [survey question], USGALLUP.701.Q010A, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL [distributor], accessed March 2, 2020.

111. Postcard from Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon to Robert Smylie, December 3, 1964, Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 8, folder [unnumbered]: Republican Governors Conference, Denver, CO, December 4–5, 1964, Idaho Historical Society.

112. Alan L. Otten, “Control of the GOP: Governors Opposing Goldwater Win First Round, but Long Fight Remains,” Wall Street Journal, December 7, 1964, 2.

113. “Smylie's Oust-Burch Call Mailed to Committeemen,” The Washington Post, December 23, 1964.

114. Letter from William Scranton to Dwight Eisenhower, December 9, 1964, Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 7, folder [unnumbered]: Republican Governors’ Association 1964, Idaho Historical Society.

115. Address by the Honorable Dean Burch, Republican National Chairman, before the National Press Club, January 8, 1965, Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 7, folder [unnumbered]: Republican Governors’ Association 1964, Idaho Historical Society.

116. Press Release: Statement by GOP Chairman Burch on Republican Governors’ Association Paper, December 7, 1964, Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 7, folder [unnumbered]: Republican Governors’ Association 1964, Idaho Historical Society.

117. Brian M. Conley, “States and the Making of the ‘Service’ Party,” Journal of American Studies 45, no. 3 (2011): 520.

118. Conley, “The Politics of Party Renewal,” 55.

119. Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, “Inside Report: The Republican Governors,” The Washington Post, July 28, 1965, A21.

120. Ted Knap, “GOP Governors Score Another Victory,” Rocky Mountain News, December 21, 1966, 50, Governor John Love Papers, series 2, box 5, folder 37, Western History Collection WH1084, Denver Public Library.

121. Financial Statement: July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1966, John H. Chafee Gubernatorial and Secretary of the Navy Papers, 1962–1975, box 99, folder 739, Special Collections, University of Rhode Island.

122. The RGA did not engage in much fundraising on its own during the period under study here. Expenditures by the group do not also indicate that the group was directing money toward candidates of any particular ideological persuasion. Unity and party growth seem to have ruled the day during this era.

123. See, for instance, Critchlow, Donald T., Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman's Crusade (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

124. “G.O.P. Governors Name 5 to Coordinating Group,” The New York Times, February 26, 1965, 32.

125. Karl A. Lamb, “Program Committee and the Nationalization of Republican Policy,” Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 7, folder [unnumbered]: Republican Governors Association, Denver, CO, September 14, 1963, Idaho Historical Society.

126. Press Release: Statement by Senator Dirksen, The Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership, January 11, 1965, Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 11, folder [unnumbered]: Republican Coordinating Council, 1/65-6/66, Idaho Historical Society.

127. Ibid.

128. Klinkner, The Losing Parties, 85.

129. Ibid., 87.

130. Proceedings of the Governors’ Conference 1965, 156.

131. Brooks, Glenn E., When Governors Convene: The Governors’ Conference and National Politics (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1961), 33Google Scholar.

132. On this point, see DiSalvo, Engines of Change, 44.

133. Proceedings of the Governors’ Conference 1965, 93.

134. “Asia Policy Scored by Idaho Republican,” The New York Times, April 11, 1966, 3.

135. “Love Favors Blockade of Haiphong,” Rocky Mountain News, May 24, 1967, p. 28, Governor John Love Papers, series 2, box 5, folder 47, Western History Collection WH1084, Denver Public Library. Love's trip angered Republican Colorado Senator Pete Dominick whose simultaneous trip to Southeast Asia was overshadowed by that of the governor.

136. James Foster, “GOP Faction Irked Over Love's Trip,” Rocky Mountain News, May 24, 1967, Governor John Love Papers, series 2, box 5, folder 47, Western History Collection WH1084, Denver Public Library.

137. Statement of the Executive Committee of the Republican Governors’ Conference—Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, [undated], Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 8, folder [unnumbered]: Republican Governors Association Meeting April 10–11, 1964, Washington, DC, Idaho Historical Society.

138. Joseph A. Loftus, “G.O.P. Governors Call Inquiry on Baker an ‘Affront’ to Nation,” The New York Times, April 11, 1964, 10.

139. Speech given in Michigan on Lincoln's Birthday—February 1967, John H. Chafee Gubernatorial and Secretary of the Navy Papers, 1962–1975, box 108, folder 838, Special Collections, University of Rhode Island.

140. Reply to State of the Union Address, January 19th, 1968, handwritten notes given to Washington, DC, Press, John H. Chafee Gubernatorial and Secretary of the Navy Papers, 1962–1975, box 109, folder 843, Special Collections, University of Rhode Island.

141. Walter Pincus and David S. Broder, “GOP Leaders Map Reply to LBJ Talk,” The Washington Post, January 17, 1968, A2.

142. Don Irwin, “GOP Governors Differ in State of Union Attack: 7 Question $186 Billion Budget, While 2 Appear Ready to Accept Tax Increase,” The Los Angeles Times, January 19, 1968, 16.

143. The presidential contests of the 1960s saw a dramatic increase in the share of governors serving in this role. Before 1960 the largest share of governors to serve was 60 percent in 1956. In the 1960s it topped 80 percent and remained above 60 percent through 1976, the last instance in which the GOP nomination was in question going into the convention. Love and Nelson Rockefeller, two of the most active members of the RGA, did not serve as delegates in 1968 but both were in attendance at the Convention.

144. See, for instance, Ceaser, Presidential Selection. Winthrop and Nelson Rockefeller were, for instance, both “favorite son” candidates from their respective states. This was the first time in history brothers had received votes at the same national nominating convention.

145. Davis S. Broder, “GOP Warned on ‘Pushing’ Rocky: Implicit Warning Conditions for Draft Romney Absent,” The Washington Post, December 8, 1967, A3.

146. “Governors Drop Plan for Nixon Opponent,” The Washington Post, March 24, 1968, A5.

147. Daniel Evans, “Keynote Address,” The Republican Hour, August 5, 1968, 680.

148. Letter to Raymond Shafer, March 25, 1968, John H. Chafee Gubernatorial and Secretary of the Navy Papers, 1962–1975, box 99, folder 739, Special Collections, University of Rhode Island.

149. “Bliss Announces Appointment of Temporary Convention Resolutions Committee,” Republican National Committee News, May 29, 1968, Ray Bliss Papers, MSS 768, box 135, folder 21, Ohio History Connection, Columbus, OH.

150. Ray C. Bliss, Press Interview, Palm Beach, Florida, December 7, 1967, Ray Bliss Papers, MSS 768, box 134, folder 30, Ohio History Connection, Columbus, OH.

151. David Broder, “Republican Governors Seek Unity: GOP Governors Convene in Tulsa, The Washington Post, June 15, 1968, A1.

152. Statement by Governor John H. Chafee of Rhode Island, Chairman of the Republican Governors Association to the Republican Platform Committee, Fontainebleau Hotel, July 31, 1968, John H. Chafee Gubernatorial and Secretary of the Navy Papers, 1962–1975, box 109, folder 846, p. 3, Special Collections, University of Rhode Island.

153. Ibid., 1.

154. American Presidency Project, Republican Party Platform of 1964, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=25840.

155. Ibid.

156. “Government for Tomorrow: A Proposal for the Unconditional Sharing of Federal Tax Revenues with State and Local Governments” [research paper issued jointly by the Republican Governors’ Association and Ripon Society], June 1965, Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 10, folder: 1965, Tax Sharing, Ripon Society/Republican Governors Association, Idaho Historical Society.

157. “The New Federalist Papers: Part 1 Synergistic Federalism,” Trumbull Society of New York, Papers of Robert E. Smylie, MS 280, box 8, folder: Republican Governors Conference, Denver, CO, December 4–5, 1964, Idaho Historical Society.

158. American Presidency Project, Republican Party Platform of 1968, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=25841.

159. Ibid.

160. Ibid.

161. DiSalvo, Engines of Change, 14.

162. Carter, Dan T., The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics, 2nd ed. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2000/1995), 196Google Scholar.

163. Wallace, George, “Wallace for President: The 1964 Campaign Speech,” in George Wallace: Conservative Populist, ed. Rohler, Lloyd (Westport: Praeger, 2004), 128Google Scholar.

164. Milkis, The President and the Parties, 197.

165. Claudia Sitton, “Goldwater Gets Backing in South: Govs. Faubus, Wallace and Johnson to Bolt Ticket—Others Undecided,” The New York Times, August 16, 1964, 1.

166. Cabell Phillips, “Johnson Spurned by 4 Southerners: Faubus, Wallace, Johnson and McKeithen Boycott a Meeting of Governors,” The New York Times, August 23, 1964, 1.

167. Warren Weaver Jr., “They Say He Will Meet Them on Grievances but No Date Is Set,” The New York Times, December 17, 1966, 1. Only Hughes and Calvin Rampton of Utah opposed these resolutions.

168. Richard Wilson, “The Other Democratic Voice,” The Los Angeles Times, December 20, 1966, A5.

169. Milkis, The President and the Parties, 178.

170. Kearns, Doris, Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream (New York: New American Library, 1976), 256Google Scholar.

171. Robert Young, “LBJ Host to Disenchanted Governors: Nine Democrats Talk and Lunch at Ranch,” Chicago Tribune, December 23, 1966, 17.

172. “Democratic Governors Meet July 1 to Study Buildup for ’68 Campaign,” The Washington Post, June 2, 1967, A2.

173. Johnson appointed three governors to lead this office, including Bryant, Buford Ellington, and Price Daniel, all of whom had been governors of Southern states.

174. Minutes of the Meeting, Democratic Governors’ Caucus, St. Louis, Missouri, July 1, 1967, John Dempsey Papers, box 248, folder: Democratic Governors’ Conference, New York, 10/16/1967, Connecticut State Library.

175. Letter to Keith Schonreck from Nancy Bush, July 30, 1967, John Dempsey Papers, box 248, folder: Dem. Nat. Correspondence, Connecticut State Library.

176. Letter to John Dempsey from John M. Bailey, March 4, 1968, John Dempsey Papers, box 248, folder: Dem. Nat. Correspondence, Connecticut State Library.

177. Ibid.

178. Robert Young, “Dem Governor Pep Talks Are ‘Music’ to LBJ,” Chicago Tribune, July 2, 1967, 4.

179. Cited in Lewis L. Gould, 1968: The Election That Changed America, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1993/2010), 9.

180. Remarks by Governor Docking of Kansas to the Democratic Governors, Waldorf-Astoria, New York City, Sunday, October 15, 1967, John Dempsey Papers, box 248, folder: Democratic Governors’ Conference, New York, 10/16/1967, Connecticut State Library.

181. Warren Weaver Jr., “Governors Likely to Fight Kennedy: St. Louis Gathering Expected to Press for Humphrey,” The New York Times, April 4, 1968, 22.

182. David S. Broder, “Governors Decide to ‘Wait and See,’” The Washington Post, April 16, 1968, A1.

183. Robert Howard, “Democratic Governors Hold Secret Talks,” Chicago Tribune, April 16, 1968, B8.

184. Ibid.

185. Broder, “Governors Decide to ‘Wait and See.’” Hughes later gave a speech nominating McCarthy.

186. Gould, 1968: The Election That Changed America, 110.

187. Roy Reed, “Humphrey Asks Abolition of Unit Rule at Convention,” The New York Times, July 30, 1968, 1.

188. Schmidt, John R. and Whalen, Wayne W., “Credentials Contests at the 1968—and 1972—Democratic National Conventions,” Harvard Law Review 82, no 7. (1969): 1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

189. Ibid., 1443.

190. Ibid., 1451.

191. Letter to all Democratic Governors from Charles A. Byrley, August 5, 1968, John Dempsey Papers, box 248, folder: Democratic National Convention, Connecticut State Library.

192. “Connally Statement to the Platform Committee,” The New York Times, August 23, 1968, 23.

193. American Presidency Project, 1968 Democratic Party Platform, August 26, 1968, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1968-democratic-party-platform.

194. Shafer and Wagner, The Long War Over Party Structure, 18–25.

195. Weinberg, Micah, “Measuring Governors’ Political Orientations Using Words as Data,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 10, no. 1 (2010): 96–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Coffey, Daniel, “Measuring Gubernatorial Ideology: A Content Analysis of State of the State Speeches,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5 (2005): 88–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Paddock, Joel, State and National Parties and American Democracy (New York: Peter Lang, 2004)Google Scholar.

196. Jensen, “Governors and Partisan Polarization in the Federal Arena,” 314.