Pretty much what it says on the tin. I've found suggestions that his platform lacked stuff to attract the workers to get that crucial Midwestern vote. It's also been pointed at that the presence of Sewall on the ticket is ... rather odd, or at least it doesn't really add anything to his ticket. I know it's already pretty impressive that he got that many votes, but are there points of his platform he could compromise on or deemphasize to make the unthinkable happen and have him defeat McKinley, more in the mainstream and outspending him by 15millions?
What did WJB need to win the 1896 election ?
- Thread starter Mina-van-Mako
- Start date
Bryan almost won California, Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana and *Ohio*, so I don't think a big POD is necessary. Maybe McKinley makes some kind of mistake on the campaign trail?
Bryan might have had better luck if he'd been running against someone less popular than McKinley, who actually ran a very good campaign, had a pretty broad base of support, and was from a big, closely-divided state.
Maybe if the GOP had nominated Levi Morton instead of McKinley - an elderly New York banker with no Civil War record, no ties to labor, no Mark Hanna, and no connections to the Midwest would have been easier to paint as a tool of Wall Street.
Maybe if the GOP had nominated Levi Morton instead of McKinley - an elderly New York banker with no Civil War record, no ties to labor, no Mark Hanna, and no connections to the Midwest would have been easier to paint as a tool of Wall Street.
Last edited:
It did though. Sewall wasn't very controversial, so it wasn't easy to attack him like it was Bryan. Furthermore, he was clear outreach to more conservative members of the party that opposed Bryanite populism. Yes, he was unqualified; but Vice Presidential picks weren't given much weight - McKinley's running mate was a state legislator who had been out of office for over a decade, and Chester A. Arthur was a machine politician with no elective experience. Besides, there was no threat of him assuming office (Bryan was the youngest Presidential candidate of all time, and an entire generation younger than Sewall).
IMO Bryan pretty heavily overperformed, consider the political situation and the unpopularity of the (Democratic) incumbent. It's hard to compromise without hurting Bryan's image -- which was that of a "people's man," and which probably would have hurt him amongst his base. He might have done better by *maybe* deemphasizing his ultra-Protestantism -- which was a hard pill to swallow for Democratic constituencies in cities like New York -- but he also lost the state quite heavily. It's probably easier to get him elected in 1900, when the war and imperialism was actually quite unpopular.
Why? Being a populist doesn't make you a psychopath; and yes, he was very religious, but I'm not sure how that makes him psychopathic.
dcharles
Banned
I mean, he could be a pretty big jackass, but I can think of about 100 other American politicians of the time who were worse than him.
Are there any common threads among those states that Bryan could use to gain support? Cali and WV are mining states so he may support better workplace protection (if he doesn't already). Ohio and Indiana are industrial states so once again the difficulty to engage factory workers kicks in ...
Is is likely that the 1896 Republican convention would shoot itself in the foot like that? Could something (like a big scandal) prevent McKinley to access the presidency?
I understand ... Sewall was the Conservative aimed at appeasing that branch of the Party. Could anyone have fulfilled that role while adding something to the campaign? (For instance a person of similar political disposition who happens to be from the Midwest?)
But by 1900, wouldn't the economy have somewhat improved? That would deprive him from parts of his base, wouldn't it? For the compromises, would they hurt him more than they would benefit him? (for instance would conceding that some specific sectors of the industry might need somewhat high tariffs to develop help him more with the Midwest worker than it would hurt him with his base?)
Sewell also had substantial private wealth. If you're wanting to fund a Bryan campaign, he's rather useful.
Though if you want a popular fellow from the Mid-West who wouldn't ruffle too many feathers, maybe Claude Matthews as VP. Incumbent Governor of Indiana, who did actually put down some strikes (and who therefore was hardly a revolutionary).
Though if you want a popular fellow from the Mid-West who wouldn't ruffle too many feathers, maybe Claude Matthews as VP. Incumbent Governor of Indiana, who did actually put down some strikes (and who therefore was hardly a revolutionary).
Last edited:
So, attempting to summarize, to maximize WJB's chances:
Maybe Matthews could be a good alternative for a VP as he's a Midwestern guy, helping a bit on winning Indiana and Ohio, he was very popular in Indiana and could do his own campaigning for the ticket, allowing WJB to gain a bit of time and get more time in Ohio.
Deemphasizing his Ultra-Protestantism to avoid antagonizing people too much
Campaign a bit more in Kentucky or have McKinley antagonize Kentucky with a big blunder?
If these things work, he gets 226 EVs (or 225 if Cali has no faithless elector ITTL)
Ohio is going to be the hardest part but there's no way to win without it.
Maybe Matthews could be a good alternative for a VP as he's a Midwestern guy, helping a bit on winning Indiana and Ohio, he was very popular in Indiana and could do his own campaigning for the ticket, allowing WJB to gain a bit of time and get more time in Ohio.
Deemphasizing his Ultra-Protestantism to avoid antagonizing people too much
Campaign a bit more in Kentucky or have McKinley antagonize Kentucky with a big blunder?
If these things work, he gets 226 EVs (or 225 if Cali has no faithless elector ITTL)
Ohio is going to be the hardest part but there's no way to win without it.
Sewall was also a supporter of free silver, so not only was he chosen to help get support from conservative voters in New England, but also to ensure a form of ideological unity on the economic question instead of being contradictory
It seems like it would also work with Claude Matthews (New England was pretty much a lost cause, so it may be better to have a Midwestern presence): he campaigned as Governor of Indiana on a devaluation of the dollar to help farmers (although I can't find anything indicating he would be either pro-gold or pro-silver).
I know, but it feels rather incendiary and accusational to call WJB a psychopath
I agree, I completely disagree with this behavior too. I just don't really wish you fire up an argument. If you want you can report him for flamebaiting (which I would concur it is) but let's not spark a useless discussion and derail this thread
Claude Matthews could be a good choice, but an even better one could be Ohio Senator Calvin S. Brice. He was sure to lose his seat in his upcoming 1896 re-election Senate bid due to Republican control of the state legislature, so it is not like the Democrats are losing anything by nominating him. He was a solid Bourbonite, and a Midwesterner to boot, so he would do well in balancing the ticket.