Retrospective US Presidential Election: 1900

[Nerdlinger]

I plan to run through every US presidential election, two per week. The 28 elections from 1789-1896 will be run simultaneously with the 28 elections from 1900-2008. Be sure to vote in each election!

For 1789-1800, I will include in the poll everyone who received at least 5% of the electoral vote. From 1804-2008, I will include everyone who received at least 0.05% of the popular vote. Results for each election will be posted on the dedicated Retrospective US Presidential Election Results Thread (here) and compared to the actual results. The thread for general project discussion is here.

Here's the link to the 1789 election.

[scholar]

William "You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!" Jennings Bryan.

[Know Nothing]

McKinley is a bleh businessman, but he's got Roosevelt on the ticket. He's far too overtalented for the VP spot, but it sets him up nicely in 4 years. He does seem to have national support in a manner that probably was last seen in the Civil War era with Grant.

I just hope the bosses won't block Teddy at the convention...

[scholar]

Why so many votes for the socialist?

[eaglesfan101]

Originally Posted by scholar

Why so many votes for the socialist?

The competition isn't great. I expect Debs to get destroyed in 1904 for obvious reasons.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by scholar

Why so many votes for the socialist?

I picked Debs because McKinley is big business and Bryan, while most of his views seem OK to me, is an ardent opponent to the teaching of evolution. Of the three of them, Debs is the most progressive. If he had been a radical/revolutionary, though, I wouldn't voted for him.

[Paul V McNutt]

Vote Bryan stop imperalism !

[XNM]

Debs all the way!

[VidaLaVida]

Originally Posted by scholar

Why so many votes for the socialist?

It was actually a pretty tough choice, because McKinley and Bryan both have some good things going for them, but also some things that cancel them out. McKinley may have TR as his Vice President, but he's too beholden to big business. Bryan has lots of common-man appeal and was anti-imperialist, but was for prohibition, opposed the theory of evolution, and, imo, his religiousity, while good for him personally, was concerning re: seperation of church and state.

So I went with the guy who seemed like a middle of the road: he'd get a better deal for labor, but wasn't such a social conservative.

[TNF]

I'd have voted for Bryan IOTL. But this is AH.com, so it looks like Debs is going to win, and I'm going to vote for him.

[scholar]

Originally Posted by VidaLaVida

Bryan has lots of common-man appeal and was anti-imperialist, but was for prohibition, opposed the theory of evolution, and, imo, his religiousity, while good for him personally, was concerning re: seperation of church and state.

I'm not too harsh on being pro prohibition. Prohibition was born in a time when labor was dangerous, blue collar jobs were all around unsafe, and men drank to excess. Children were getting drunk in massive proportions and men beat their wives in drunken rages. Prohibition was a noble effort to try to end that. It failed horribly, and I would never personally support such an endeavor because it violates simply human rights, but it doesn't mean that it was noble nor that the people who wanted it were in any way bad. Opposition to the theory of evolution also doesn't go too far against him in my view. Evolution at the time was widely controversial and many rejected it because they didn't understand it all that well. It would take time for evolution to gain wide acceptance, having Bryan around doesn't change that (or I should say 'probably won't change that'.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by scholar

Opposition to the theory of evolution also doesn't go too far against him in my view. Evolution at the time was widely controversial and many rejected it because they didn't understand it all that well. It would take time for evolution to gain wide acceptance, having Bryan around doesn't change that (or I should say 'probably won't change that'.

It was his role in the Scopes Trial which put a really bad taste in my mouth.

[VidaLaVida]

Originally Posted by scholar

I'm not too harsh on being pro prohibition. Prohibition was born in a time when labor was dangerous, blue collar jobs were all around unsafe, and men drank to excess. Children were getting drunk in massive proportions and men beat their wives in drunken rages. Prohibition was a noble effort to try to end that. It failed horribly, and I would never personally support such an endeavor because it violates simply human rights, but it doesn't mean that it was noble nor that the people who wanted it were in any way bad. Opposition to the theory of evolution also doesn't go too far against him in my view. Evolution at the time was widely controversial and many rejected it because they didn't understand it all that well. It would take time for evolution to gain wide acceptance, having Bryan around doesn't change that (or I should say 'probably won't change that'.

Alcoholism certainly was a big social problem in America at the time. But looking at things retrospectively (as the title of the thread says), prohibition was a bandaid solution. As you said, the root cause was stressful, dangerous conditions for workers, which drove them to alcohol. A root cause solution would therefore be labor reform and improvement of their conditions. Hence, the socialist candidate looks appealing in that regard.

Truth also about evolution being controversial. Perhaps I should rephrase: I'm not against Bryan's personal opposition to Darwinism, so much as his strong opposition to allowing it to be taught in schools. Free speech, seperation of church and state, and all that.

Diff'rent strokes.

[pieman97405]

Come on folks, McKinley won the war with Spain, and has Roosevelt on the ticket.

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by scholar

Why so many votes for the socialist?

The candidate is really amazing for one thing, Debs is by far one of the best and most beloved labor organizers in history which is definately better than the other more mediocre candidates.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by pieman97405

Come on folks, McKinley won the war with Spain, and has Roosevelt on the ticket.

He also started the war with Spain.

[ColeMercury]

Although I agree more with Debs's policies (and would probably vote for him first if the election had used instant-runoff voting), I'd want to vote for someone who'd have a chance of winning and throwing McKinley out of office, so I'd vote for Bryan instead. It's important to consider the context of the time.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

I would vote for Eugene Debs.

[RogueBeaver]

I'd vote McKinley, since I would agree with him on everything except trade.

[Paul V McNutt]

Originally Posted by scholar

Why so many votes for the socialist?

Because what was socialism in 1900 is conventional wisdom now.