Retrospective US Presidential Election Results Thread

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Its not Charles Pinckney, but Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. The Cotesworth is there to distinguish him from his relative, also a politican.

I think DJC thought (rightfully IMO) that if he was President, then the more obscure relatives wouldn't be remembered. John Tyler Jr., Theodore Roosvelt Jr.? Not what they're known as. But Cotesworth is a cool name, soooooo

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Well, I personally think that if the number can be rounded up to 0.05% then they should go in.

FYI, regardless of how DJC rules on the question, you'll get your chance to vote for LaRouche in 1984.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord Hart

FYI, regardless of how DJC rules on the question, you'll get your chance to vote for LaRouche in 1984.

I already did rule on the question. He almost made the cut, but "almost" only really counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

I think Vincent Hallinan might take a few votes from Stevenson come '52.

[mowque]

Originally Posted by DJC

I already did rule on the question. He almost made the cut, but "almost" only really counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

For what of a nail.

[TNF]

Are we going to get an infobox for 1932 soon?

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by TNF

Are we going to get an infobox for 1932 soon?

I haven't made infoboxes for elections which had the same winner as OTL.

[scholar]

Originally Posted by DJC

I haven't made infoboxes for elections which had the same winner as OTL.

This should be rectified, as it is unlikely that the number of votes went the same and there should be a far more diverse range of other candidates important to the election.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by scholar

This should be rectified, as it is unlikely that the number of votes went the same and there should be a far more diverse range of other candidates important to the election.

Maybe at the end of the project, if and when I have time to make all those wikiboxes. Each one takes a while because I'm OCD about them (and about pretty much everything else). I do intend to make one for 1824 even if Adams wins here, since he lost the popular vote in OTL.

[Nerdlinger]

I had some time, so as requested, I made an infobox for 1932. I'm to going to try to work my way back and fill in the gaps. I'm making the one for 1904 next.

[Nerdlinger]

Unfortunately, it's too late for me to edit the post for the 1904 results, but here's the infobox anyway.

[Enigmajones]

You know the map is contradictory right?

[Ariosto]

How are they able to win any states with PV numbers so low?

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Enigmajones

You know the map is contradictory right?

Originally Posted by Ariosto

How are they able to win any states with PV numbers so low?

Can you both elaborate a bit? Which map(s) is/are you referring to?

[Cuāuhtemōc]

So when will the 1940 and 1828 threads will be put up?

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Cuāuhtemōc

So when will the 1940 and 1828 threads will be put up?

Tonight, around midnight EST.

[Ariosto]

Originally Posted by DJC

Can you both elaborate a bit? Which map(s) is/are you referring to?

More specifically those for 1932 and 1904. I just can't see the vote being THAT concentrated in those states to actually allow them to win, considering the margins of the victor.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Originally Posted by DJC

Tonight, around midnight EST.

Excellent.

One more try for the Socialists!

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

More specifically those for 1932 and 1904. I just can't see the vote being THAT concentrated in those states to actually allow them to win, considering the margins of the victor.

OK, I'll see if I can cut back some.

[Enigmajones]

In the 1904 map it indicates that Green is for Debs and Red is for Roosevelt. Then right below that, it says the opposite.