Damned with faint praise...I wonder if Bryan would have had more access if tv existed in his time. He was far more charismatic than McKinley or Taft.
Damned with faint praise...I wonder if Bryan would have had more access if tv existed in his time. He was far more charismatic than McKinley or Taft.
Actually, Wilson was about to conceed the nomination and withdraw his name from consideration when Bryan threw his support behind him. Wilson had already drafted a concession speech and was about to have it read.I don't see anything in the first post about not being the 1908 nominee. Assuming all else up to the 1912 convention went as it did IOTL, had Bryan not opposed Clark as a candidate with Wall Street ties, the deadlock could have gone on far longer than it did--perhaps even approaching what we knew as the 100+ ballots in 1924. If so, Bryan could propose himself as a compromise to an exhausted convention who, by then, would just want the thing done. You might see a complete reprise of the 1908 Dems' ticket, with Kern as the VP nominee
I don't see anything in the first post about not being the 1908 nominee. Assuming all else up to the 1912 convention went as it did IOTL, had Bryan not opposed Clark as a candidate with Wall Street ties, the deadlock could have gone on far longer than it did--perhaps even approaching what we knew as the 100+ ballots in 1924. If so, Bryan could propose himself as a compromise to an exhausted convention who, by then, would just want the thing done. You might see a complete reprise of the 1908 Dems' ticket, with Kern as the VP nominee.
To say Bryan was more charismatic than either McKinley or Taft is like saying Sacramento is closer to Boston than is San Francisco. In a three way Taft-Bryan-TR race (I don't see anything here preventing the Bull Moose split), Taft still finishes third in electoral votes,
but TR will tie Bryan in knots. Then things get complicated. Bryan won't win squat in the northeast if previous elections are any indication.
Would WJB work to make the US the neutral arbiter of peace in Europe?
How would the US react to the Russian civil war?
As @Mikestone8 noted, there's no reason to think that Bryan wouldn't win a Wilson-esque Electoral College landslide, but even if the election ended up in the House, the Democrats would control a majority of the delegations.TR would somehow have to eke out enough electoral votes to keep the election out of the House: if it gets into the House, he's done, and he becomes a reluctant kingmaker for Taft.
As @Mikestone8 noted, there's no reason to think that Bryan wouldn't win a Wilson-esque Electoral College landslide, but even if the election ended up in the House, the Democrats would control a majority of the delegations.
[1] Or just abstained. Percentage turnout in 1912 was well down on 1908, and in thirty states the absolute numbers were also down. Quite a bit of the fallback probably consisted of Bryan men who found the President of Princeton too "Establishment" for their taste. Whatever his limitations, Bryan was the best vote-getter the Democrats had.
And Bryan by then was not seen as quite the radical he once was. The country was already more progressive in 1912 then in 1896, and Bryan had become a party elder of sorts. Conservative Democrats would have been willing to vote for him, especially to stop TR and Debs.
Heck, while Taft could still win in Utah against Bryan, I think Bryan would do better than Wilson there and would probably win it. Taft might only win Vermont then.
Unless Shranck's attempt on TR's life is butterflied away. The courage he showed at that time probably saved him from finishing third.
How do you work that out? In 1908 Bryan got more votes in NY (667,468) than Wilson would in 1912 (655,475), and there's no reason for his performance to be much different this time. A few conservative "Parker" Democrats may switch to Taft, but OTOH some Bryan Dems who voted OTL for Eugene Debs [1] will likely return to the fold, so overall it's probably a wash. It's much the same in NJ, where Bryan got 182,567 in 1908, Wilson only 178,289 four years later.
Further west it was even worse. Bryan took 338,262 [2] in Indiana, Wilson only 281,890. In Ohio it was 502,721 against Wilson's 423,152 And the 1912 figures were out of a larger population.
And even if Bryan did somehow lose the Northeast, would it really matter? Wilson in 1916 would demonstrate that it was perfectly possible for a Democrat to write off the Northeast and yet still win on Southern and Western votes alone - even in a straight fight.
[1] Or just abstained. Percentage turnout in 1912 was well down on 1908, and in thirty states the absolute numbers were also down. Quite a bit of the fallback probably consisted of Bryan men who found the President of Princeton too "Establishment" for their taste. Whatever his limitations, Bryan was the best vote-getter the Democrats had.
[2] Less than 11,000 votes behind Taft, when the latter led a united Republican party as the hand-picked successor of a popular incumbent.
Bryan won't win squat in the northeast if previous elections are any indication.
What you say about the actual numbers is correct, but you can't draw those conclusions from those shaky comparisons.
It may or may not be a coincidence that the combined Democratic and Socialist vote is remarkably similar both years - 1908 47,491, 1912 45,602. Makes me suspect that Debs provided a home for some disgruntled Bryan men.
Your analysis has debatable bases. Comparing Bryan's performance in a two-way race in 1908 to Wilson's in a three way race in 1912 is tantamount to comparing apples to grapefruit. Furthermore, Bryan never challenged TR directly, and we all know that TR was a master at working a crowd. On top of that, comparing the ultra-narrow two-way race in 1916 to the three way race in 1912 is also a fallacy. What you say about the actual numbers is correct, but you can't draw those conclusions from those shaky comparisons.
Exactly. All 1912 proves that when one of the major parties is split into two, even if it’s the dominating majoritarian party, it will lose to the other major party. Why? Because in a state where the Republicans garner 63% of the vote while the Democratic vote is 37% in a two way race is a crushing defeat for the Democratic candidate in hat state. But split the GOP in two, and that 37% is all you need to win said state.
Why not New York? He always got around 43% of the vote besides in 1896. NYC voters majority of times stocked with him.
New England I agree, but losing New England and losing the Northeast are two very different things.
By this time, Bryan is identified pretty strongly with prohibition. He was also known informally as "the Protestant Pope" by some. Couple those and the ethnic voters (Irish; Italian; German) in the Northeast-not just New York!- aren't going to like him one bit. You want to explain to a cop enjoying a day off, or a mason, or a jeweler (stereotypes, I know, but I'm exaggerating deliberately) why he should vote for a president who's going to take away his whisky / vino / beer that affords enjoyment? I don't think that'll work too well.
How would the WJB administration look like had it won in 1912?