Sequel de Mayo (Cinco de Mayo, Vol. II)

[KingSweden24]

United States elections, 1916

United States Presidential election, 1916
​

Elihu Root of New York/James R. Garfield of Ohio (Liberal) - 296 Electoral Votes, 49.1% Popular Vote

New York - 63
Pennsylvania - 51
Illinois - 38
California - 24
Massachusetts - 23
Michigan - 21
Indiana - 20
New Jersey - 20
Connecticut - 10
Maine - 8
Rhode Island - 6
New Hampshire - 5
Vermont - 4
Delaware - 3

George B. McClellan, Jr. of New York/Newton D. Baker of Ohio (Democratic) - 203 Electoral Votes, 46.1% Popular Vote

Ohio - 32
Missouri - 23
Wisconsin - 17
Iowa - 16
Minnesota - 16
Kansas - 13
Maryland - 11
Nebraska - 10
Washington - 10
West Virginia - 10
Dakota - 9
Colorado - 8
Oregon - 7
Montana - 5
New Mexico - 5
Idaho - 5
Wyoming - 3
Nevada - 3

Arthur Reimer of Massachusetts/Allan Louis Benson of New York (Socialist) - 0 Electoral Votes, 3.8% Popular Vote

James Franklin Hanly of Indiana/Daniel Sheen of Illinois (Prohibition) - 0 Electoral Votes, 0.9% Popular Vote

United States Senate elections, 1916​

While the Liberals achieved what had eluded them since 1900 - organizing the United States Senate - it was purely by winning in Indiana, where the retiring Ben Shively had died in the spring of 1916 and Representative James Watson narrowly defeated appointed incumbent Thomas Taggart; with the win and a Liberal Vice President in James Garfield, the Liberals had a majority purely by tiebreaker, meaning that any absences, deaths or resignations would have ended their majority on the spot. Indeed, it was a dismaying result for the party, as they had hoped that coattails from Root that never materialized would help them pick off seats in places like Minnesota or Missouri, but this did not transpire. The Senate map of 1916 was narrowy thanks to their gains six years earlier in Class 1, and a precarious majority awaited them. Sons of dead Senators successfully defended their seats in Rhode Island (Sprague) and West Virginia (Davis), while colorful new Western Senators like Hiram Johnson and Henry Ashurst joined the body in what would be the start of long and famous careers.

CA: John D. Works (Liberal) Retired; Hiram Johnson (Liberal) ELECTED (Liberal Hold)
CT: George P. McLean (Liberal) Re-Elected
DE: J. Edward Addicks (Liberal) Re-Elected
IN: Benjamin Shively (Democrat) Died in Office; Thomas Taggart (Democrat) Appointed and DEFEATED; James E. Watson (Liberal) ELECTED (L+1)
ME: Frederick Hale (Liberal) ELECTED [1]
MD: John W. Smith (Democrat) Re-Elected
MA: Henry Cabot Lodge (Liberal) Re-Elected and Resigned to be Secretary of State; Frederick Gillett (Liberal) Appointed [1]
MI: Charles E. Townsend (Liberal) Re-Elected
MN: John Lind (Democrat) Re-Elected
MO: James A. Reed (Democrat) Re-Elected
NE: Richard Lee Metcalfe (Democrat) Re-Elected
NV: Denver Sylvester Dickerson (Democrat) Re-Elected
NJ: Joseph Sherman Frelinghuysen (Liberal) Re-Elected
NM: Bernard Rodey (Democrat) Retired; Henry Ashurst (Democrat) ELECTED (Democratic Hold)
NY: Bainbridge Colby (Liberal) Re-Elected
OH: Frank Monnett (Liberal) Re-Elected
PA: Philander Knox (Liberal) Re-Elected
RI: William Sprague IV (Liberal) Died in Office; William Sprague V (Liberal) Appointed and ELECTED (Liberal Hold)
VT: Carroll S. Page (Liberal) Re-Elected
WV: Thomas S. Riley (Democrat) Re-Elected
WV (special): John J. Davis (Democrat) Died in Office; John W. Davis (Democrat) ELECTED (Democratic Hold)
WI: Francis McGovern (Liberal) Re-Elected
WY: John Eugene Osborne (Democrat) Re-Elected

United States House elections, 1916​

As in the Senate, House Liberals had presumptuously and arrogantly assumed that the victory in the war would carry them to more than 250, perhaps more than 260, seats in the House; these hopes were quickly dashed as dozens of Democrats won reelection more easily than expected and the eventual gains were muted at 21 pickups, heavily concentrated in New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, the three states that had largely cost them their majority two years earlier; in a warning sign, they failed to defeat any of several Democratic freshmen in Massachusetts, and Democrats successfully warded off Socialist challenges even in marginal Mining Belt seats that had been thought vulnerable. Nonetheless, a narrow win is a win, and by returning the gavel to James Mann they now had a narrow but workable trifecta in Philadelphia for the 65th Congress.

United States State elections, 1916​

Liberals had hoped to undo some of the damage of the 1914 midterms in state legislatures and gubernatorial races but found these ambitions flustered even though they made small gains in many states; nonetheless, they flipped the Indiana Governor's mansion with James Goodrich, and held Illinois with Frank O. Lowden, the two biggest prizes on the 1916 map, while flipping Washington state with Roland Hartley, the sole Liberal to hold that office between 1901 and 1949. Democrats, for their part, successfully held the governorships in Missouri, Delaware, West Virginia, and Minnesota.

65th United States Congress​

Senate: 32L/FL-32D

President of the Senate: James Garfield (L-OH)
Senate President pro tempore: William Chandler (L-NH)
Chairman of Senate Liberal Conference: Boies Penrose (L-PA)
Chairman of Senate Democratic Conference: John Kern (D-IN)

California
1. Hiram Johnson (L) (1917)
3. James D. Phelan (D) (1903)

Colorado
2. John Shafroth (D) (1913)
3. John Andrew Martin (D) (1915)

Connecticut
1. George P. McLean (L) (1911)
3. Henry Roberts (L) (1911)

Dakota
2. Fountain Thompson (D) (1901)
3. John Burke (D) (1915)

Delaware
1. J. Edward Addicks (L) (1905)
2. Henry A. du Pont (L) (1907)

Idaho
2. Fred Dubois (D) (1907)
3. Moses Alexander (D) (1905)

Illinois
2. Joseph Medill McCormick (L) (1914)
3. Richard Yates Jr. (L) (1909)

Indiana
1. James E. Waston (L) (1917)
3. John W. Kern (D) (1903)

Iowa
2. William D. Jamieson (D) (1913)
3. Claude R. Porter (D) (1909)

Kansas
2. Dudley Doolittle (D) (1913)
3. George H. Hodges (D) (1909)

Maine
1. Frederick Hale (L) (1911)
2. Frank Guernsey (L) (1911)

Maryland
1. John W. Smith (D) (1908)
3. Blair Lee (D) (1913)

Massachusetts
1. Fred Gillett (L) (1916) [1]
2. John Weeks (L) (1913)

Michigan
1. Charles E. Townsend (L) (1911)
2. William Alden Smith (L) (1907)

Minnesota
1. John Lind (D) (1911)
2. Knute Nelson (D) (1901)

Missouri
1. James A. Reed (D) (1905)
3. James T. Lloyd (D) (1903)

Montana
2. Thomas Walsh (D) (1913)
3. Henry L. Myers (D) (1915)

Nebraska
1. Richard Lee Metcalfe (D) (1905)
2. Gilbert Hitchcock (D) (1913)

Nevada
1. Denver Sylvester Dickerson (1911)
3. Francis Newlands (D) (1903)

New Hampshire
2. William Chandler (L) (1889)
3. Winston Churchill (L) (1909)

New Jersey
1. Joseph Sherman Frelinghuysen (L) (1911)
2. Mahlon Pitney (L) (1913)

New Mexico
1. Henry Ashurst (D) (1917)
2. Octaviano Larrazola (D) (1901)

New York
1. Bainbridge Colby (L) (1911)
3. James Wolcott Wadsworth Jr. (L) (1915)

Ohio
1. Frank Monnett (L) (1911)
3. Newton Baker (D) (1909)

Oregon
2. Jonathan Bourne (L) (1907)
3. Walter Lafferty (FL) (1915)

Pennsylvania
1. Philander Knox (L) (1905)
3. Boies Penrose (L) (1897)

Rhode Island
1. William Sprague V (L) (1915)
2. George Wetmore (L) (1895)

Vermont
1. Carroll S. Page (L) (1908)
3. George H. Prouty (L) (1909)

Washington

2. George Turner (D) (1889)
3. Ole Hanson (FL) (1915)

West Virginia
1. Thomas S. Riley (D) (1905)
2. John W. Davis (D) (1916)

Wisconsin
1. Francis McGovern (L) (1911)
3. Robert La Follette (L) (1903)

Wyoming
1. John Eugene Osborne (D) (1905)
2. Frank Houx (D) (1913)

House: 233L-196D-6S (+21L)

Speaker of the House: James Mann (L-IL)
House Majority Leader: Thomas S. Butler (L-PA)
House Majority Whip: William Greene (L-MA)
House Liberal Caucus Chair: Charles Mann Hamilton (L-NY)

House Minority Leader: Champ Clark (D-MO)
House Minority Whip: John J. Fitzgerald (D-NY)
House Democratic Caucus Chair: Thomas Gallagher (D-IL)

Socialist House Leader: Victor Berger (S-WI)
Socialist House Whip: Ed Boyce (S-ID)

[1] This is perhaps more of a footnote but I wanted to make sure I underlined this. Bear in mind, this means that both Massachusetts Senate seats are up in 1918...

 

[KingSweden24]

Narrative updates to come!

 

[Curtain Jerker]

On the one hand, Democrats have now lost seven of the last ten Presidential elections, often in blowout fashion. No wonder Hearst thinks he's the only one who can save the day - he's the only Democrat since 1892 to actually win.

On the other hand, Philly is a Liberal town now. They own this upcoming slow-rolling disaster completely. Of course, only we with the benefit of hindsight know that things are gonna blow - people on the ground at the time see the result and shrug.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

It is noteworthy how despite being on the verge of the Confederacy's defeat, the Liberals, beside a bare 3 point margin of victory and an election that was won or lost in New York (again, again, again...), still can't crack 50% of the vote. The last Liberal to win a majority of the electorate was John Hay's back in 1896 with 51.2% and before him it was Blaine's 1884 landslide with 54.7%.

Honestly, had Hearst managed to get McClellan's 46.1% in 1912 (he got 42.8%), he probably would've won his 3rd term...

The Liberal vote share in the elections from 1900-1916
1900: 45.2%
1904: 38.4%
1908: 40.2%
1912: 47.8%
1916: 49.1%

 

[KingSweden24]

On the one hand, Democrats have now lost seven of the last ten Presidential elections, often in blowout fashion. No wonder Hearst thinks he's the only one who can save the day - he's the only Democrat since 1892 to actually win.

On the other hand, Philly is a Liberal town now. They own this upcoming slow-rolling disaster completely. Of course, only we with the benefit of hindsight know that things are gonna blow - people on the ground at the time see the result and shrug.

Well, Hearst’s personality has something to do with that too, but he can back it up with some level of evidence

It is noteworthy how despite being on the verge of the Confederacy's defeat, the Liberals, beside a bare 3 point margin of victory and an election that was won or lost in New York (again, again, again...), still can't crack 50% of the vote. The last Liberal to win a majority of the electorate was John Hay's back in 1896 with 51.2% and before him it was Blaine's 1884 landslide with 54.7%.

Honestly, had Hearst managed to get McClellan's 46.1% in 1912 (he got 42.8%), he probably would've won his 3rd term...

The Liberal vote share in the elections from 1900-1916
1900: 45.2%
1904: 38.4%
1908: 40.2%
1912: 47.8%
1916: 49.1%

Good analysis. This lends me more towards my soft-retcon of considering Foraker’s term to be the effective end of the “Dynasty” with the Hearst era and Hughes/Root terms as a transition between party “systems”

I went back and forth on Root’s victory margin but in the end found an election that frustrates both parties and doesn’t deliver the Liberals much of a mandate before they feed themselves into the political woodchipper for the next several years more narratively compelling than “triumphant victory and then it all blows up,” which we have plenty of examples of both TTL around the world and IOTL with Hoover ‘28

 

[Dragonboy]

@KingSweden24 , amazing chapter as always! This story never fails to captivate me

 

[DanMcCollum]

You know, Root is going to be 72 years old when he's sworn in. Does this make him the oldest president of the United States up to this point? This is an era where a lot more deference was given to older male figures in politics and business, but I wonder his age may not become a point of comment and (amongst his opponents) concern. Especially as we know that he isn't going to be up to the task of the events coming during his administration (though, to be fair, I highly doubt MOST potential leaders could successfully navigate the storms that are coming).

Also, really nicely balanced Senate that. Real shame if someone where to ... switch sides

 

[DanMcCollum]

I went back and forth on Root’s victory margin but in the end found an election that frustrates both parties and doesn’t deliver the Liberals much of a mandate before they feed themselves into the political woodchipper for the next several years more narratively compelling than “triumphant victory and then it all blows up,” which we have plenty of examples of both TTL around the world and IOTL with Hoover ‘28

No, and it makes a lot of sense, pointing out just how hard the Liberals are going to have to swim against the current to reach the Presidency, and that it's getting progressively more difficult each cycle. Hughes was able to win, narrowly, due to Heart's 3rd Term attempt leached off voters who otherwise would have voted Democrat and now, just four years later, Root is only barely able to win despite the Liberals riding the crest of "Oh my god, we've nearly won the war!" So it fits the general trends that have already been established as well as what we know we're going to see in the next few years.

 

[Devoid]

This is perhaps more of a footnote but I wanted to make sure I underlined this. Bear in mind, this means that both Massachusetts Senate seats are up in 1918...

Oh. Oh.
Lodge is gonna shit a brick when he's represented by two Catholic Democrats, isn't he.

 

[KingSweden24]

@KingSweden24 , amazing chapter as always! This story never fails to captivate me

Thank you!

You know, Root is going to be 72 years old when he's sworn in. Does this make him the oldest president of the United States up to this point? This is an era where a lot more deference was given to older male figures in politics and business, but I wonder his age may not become a point of comment and (amongst his opponents) concern. Especially as we know that he isn't going to be up to the task of the events coming during his administration (though, to be fair, I highly doubt MOST potential leaders could successfully navigate the storms that are coming).

Also, really nicely balanced Senate that. Real shame if someone where to ... switch sides

By far the oldest, the next-closest is WH Harrison, and we all know how that went.

His age may indeed have been part of the knock on him, or at least offset the “literally the most experienced candidate ever” argument a bit.

Heh yes quite a shame wouldn’t it 😏

No, and it makes a lot of sense, pointing out just how hard the Liberals are going to have to swim against the current to reach the Presidency, and that it's getting progressively more difficult each cycle. Hughes was able to win, narrowly, due to Heart's 3rd Term attempt leached off voters who otherwise would have voted Democrat and now, just four years later, Root is only barely able to win despite the Liberals riding the crest of "Oh my god, we've nearly won the war!" So it fits the general trends that have already been established as well as what we know we're going to see in the next few years.

Yes, good point

Oh. Oh.
Lodge is gonna shit a brick when he's represented by two Catholic Democrats, isn't he.

😏😏😏

 

[Curtain Jerker]

I went back and forth on Root’s victory margin but in the end found an election that frustrates both parties and doesn’t deliver the Liberals much of a mandate before they feed themselves into the political woodchipper for the next several years more narratively compelling than “triumphant victory and then it all blows up,” which we have plenty of examples of both TTL around the world and IOTL with Hoover ‘28

I'm arguing semantics here so it doesn't really matter but I'd argue that this was actually a pretty good election for the Ls all things considered.

They won the Presidency fairly comfortably (93 electoral vote margin), regained the Senate and House, held the governorship in IL and gained the governorships in Indiana and Washington. In fact, they didn't lose a single Senate seat. It wasn't the home run party leaders were looking for sure but it was clearly a run-scoring double.

 

[KingSweden24]

I'm arguing semantics here so it doesn't really matter but I'd argue that this was actually a pretty good election for the Ls all things considered.

They won the Presidency fairly comfortably (93 electoral vote margin), regained the Senate and House, held the governorship in IL and gained the governorships in Indiana and Washington. In fact, they didn't lose a single Senate seat. It wasn't the home run party leaders were looking for sure but it was clearly a run-scoring double.

I would agree with this - in reality a pretty good result (winning a war, or at least very clearly being about to deliver the killing blow, will do that) but disconnected from the expectations Root, Penrose et al carried into things

 

[Aged_Urbanist]

Narrative updates to come!

A razor-thin trifecta... which means they have no one to blame when they fuck up the post-war transition completely in ways that are entirely foreseeable and which the political economy theorists of the day are probably already warning them about.

But no, let's shepherd the money supply tightly, reduce the tax burden in a regressive manner, and make damned sure that there are no programs for reintegrating returning veterans into civilian life, things like investment in veterans' housing, access to credit for business formation or home purchases, funds for retooling industry for civilian automobiles and agricultural machinery, or public health insurance for those injured at war...

Why would we ever seek to turn the fabulous engine of production that we just built to beat up the Confederates towards the ends of building a society fit for our returning heroes, and also making ourselves a fuckload of money in peacetime?

Sigh, at times I think it's a miracle we didn't fuck up the aftermath of WWII just as badly as WWI IOTL.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

A razor-thin trifecta... which means they have no one to blame when they fuck up the post-war transition completely in ways that are entirely foreseeable and which the political economy theorists of the day are probably already warning them about.

But no, let's shepherd the money supply tightly, reduce the tax burden in a regressive manner, and make damned sure that there are no programs for reintegrating returning veterans into civilian life, things like investment in veterans' housing, access to credit for business formation or home purchases, funds for retooling industry for civilian automobiles and agricultural machinery, or public health insurance for those injured at war...

Why would we ever seek to turn the fabulous engine of production that we just built to beat up the Confederates towards the ends of building a society fit for our returning heroes, and also making ourselves a fuckload of money in peacetime?

Sigh, at times I think it's a miracle we didn't fuck up the aftermath of WWII just as badly as WWI IOTL.

Oh they'll have something to blame when things to go hell: Tammany Hall

Seriously though, good post!

 

[KingSweden24]

Oh they'll have something to blame when things to go hell: Tammany Hall

Seriously though, good post!

*insert Eric Andre shooting Hannibal Burress “Why would Tammany Hall do this” meme*

A razor-thin trifecta... which means they have no one to blame when they fuck up the post-war transition completely in ways that are entirely foreseeable and which the political economy theorists of the day are probably already warning them about.

But no, let's shepherd the money supply tightly, reduce the tax burden in a regressive manner, and make damned sure that there are no programs for reintegrating returning veterans into civilian life, things like investment in veterans' housing, access to credit for business formation or home purchases, funds for retooling industry for civilian automobiles and agricultural machinery, or public health insurance for those injured at war...

Why would we ever seek to turn the fabulous engine of production that we just built to beat up the Confederates towards the ends of building a society fit for our returning heroes, and also making ourselves a fuckload of money in peacetime?

Sigh, at times I think it's a miracle we didn't fuck up the aftermath of WWII just as badly as WWI IOTL.

Keynesian thinking was in its infancy in 1916 (ironically in OTL 1921 Hoover gave Harding essentially your advice here and was roundly ignored) but, yes. Especially with our benefit of hindsight today the sleepwalking into disaster is plain as day

 

[Curtain Jerker]

*insert Eric Andre shooting Hannibal Burress “Why would Tammany Hall do this” meme*

Legit curious to see how the Liberals run a campaign if and when the Dems have a ticket with no New Yorkers.

Liberals: That candidate is clearly influenced by evil Tammany Hall!
Dem Candidate: Ummmm....I'm from Saint Louis, I've never even been to New York
Liberals: Well, your VP candidate is clearly influenced by evil Tammany Hall!
Dem VP Candidate: Errrr...I'm from Minneapolis, don't know what you are talking about but no
Liberals: Well shit...

 

[KingSweden24]

Legit curious to see how the Liberals run a campaign if and when the Dems have a ticket with no New Yorkers.

Liberals: That candidate is clearly influenced by evil Tammany Hall!
Dem Candidate: Ummmm....I'm from Saint Louis, I've never even been to New York
Liberals: Well, your VP candidate is clearly influenced by evil Tammany Hall!
Dem VP Candidate: Errrr...I'm from Minneapolis, don't know what you are talking about but no
Liberals: Well shit...

Haha!

You’ll have your chance to see precisely this in 1920, in fact!

 

[naraht]

Haha!

You’ll have your chance to see precisely this in 1920, in fact!

Hmm. A Missouri-Minnesota ticket. Bets on who are each half?

 

[KingSweden24]

Hmm. A Missouri-Minnesota ticket. Bets on who are each half?

Not that specifically, just a no-New Yorker ticket

 

[naraht]

Not that specifically, just a no-New Yorker ticket

Hmm. I wonder what the most "No-new Yorker" ticket is. Montana-New Mexico?

And although morbid. I think that Maryland probably loses a few seats after the 1920 Census. Being a Census taker in Maryland in 1920 isn't going to be a boring job...


(Do any of the political issues that caused the number of seats in the House after the 1920 census *not* to change exist iTTL?)