1912 WJB wins Democratic nomination

Don't forget that many of these people are working-class, and Bryan as a pro-working class Democrat could definitely get some of their votes, especially the Irish during 1916 (different election but showing that prohibition is not the only issue) would vote for the vehemently pro-neutrality Bryan who also fight for the working class. But you are right that many would switch their votes to T in 1904R (none for Taft however).

Why TR?

Why not vote for Debs, or just abstain? [1] That's what Democrats did who couldn't stomach Parker in 1904. Why would they vote for any Republican?

Also, given the Republican split, Bryan can afford some lasses. OTL, Wilson led Taft in NY by 12.6%, so even if Bryan loses three or four percentage points, he still takes the State comfortably. Assuming that loss splits about evenly between TR, Debs and abstention, then TR doesn't even overtake Taft, never mind Bryan.

[1] There were quite a few abstentions anyway. The 58.8% turnout was the lowest since 1836.
 
Considering that Bryan was a prohibitionist, I wonder how he felt about the military giving soldiers cigarettes during WWI.

I also wonder how Bryan felt about the "de-Germanization" of American culture, the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Palmer Raids.
 
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.
Admittedly there is a severe lack of data in regards to how Bryan would have done, we can't know how many Bryan voters might have gone to Roosevelt or Debs in 1912 or even stayed at home, but we can work with what we have and at the very least give us a foundation from which to mold a more concrete idea.

With that in mind I took Bryan's numbers and threw them into the 1912 Presidential race, keeping in made that I needed to adjust them against turnout by State from 1908 to 1912, and I needed to also make adjustments to the Republican/Progressive/Socialist percentages when Bryan performed better or worse then Wilson. The resulting map was largely familiar, but there were a few significant changes.

genusmap.php


kiusTZ2.png
So assuming an equivalent exchange, which I honestly doubt would occur, Roosevelt would have picked up Maine but lost Pennsylvania, and Taft would have picked up Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire, but lost Utah. Now, on the whole I honestly believe that Bryan would have taken significantly more votes from Roosevelt and Debs then he would from Taft, and Taft in turn would have been the major beneficiary to those voters defecting from Bryan, i.e. Bourbon Democrats. In running that experiment however, going with the change I had from Wilson to Bryan, only Washington flipped from the above, to Bryan.

Provided that Bryan is able to hold onto his traditional base of support, I can't see any reason why he wouldn't win in such a race, and by an impressive margin to boot.

 
Bryan will sweep the South and most of the West. He will have a hard time appealing to immigrant voters, however, as he will put more emphasis on prohibition. If war still breaks out on schedule, and if Republicans advocate American involvement, they'll vote for him in 1916.
 

He's one possibility who has some possible chance of being President. Also, remember that Debs base was mostly ethnic Germans and Finnish. That was at least the Socialist base. TR IIRC was able to get some ethnic voters due to his support of progressive policies, but not really NYC because Parker was from there.


[1] There were quite a few abstentions anyway. The 58.8% turnout was the lowest since 1836.

That I don't know why. Why was that exactly? I assumed it was just lower and also that it was part of the general drop from the third to the fourth party systems.

Provided that Bryan is able to hold onto his traditional base of support, I can't see any reason why he wouldn't win in such a race, and by an impressive margin to boot.

Again, this is so true. In fact, 1904 proved that Bryan was not the worst candidate at all the Democrats could field. In 1896 he was the establishment breaker, but a decade later he was part of the established populist progressive wing of the party. Even many loyal conservative democrats in the north voted for him in 1908. And they certainly would support him over TR. Bryan lost NYC in 1896, but he won it in 1900 and 1908. So I agree with you fully.
 
He's one possibility who has some possible chance of being President. Also, remember that Debs base was mostly ethnic Germans and Finnish. That was at least the Socialist base. TR IIRC was able to get some ethnic voters due to his support of progressive policies, but not really NYC because Parker was from there.

Then how come Debs' vote more than doubled between 1908 and 1912? Had there been a massive influx of Germans and Finns in the intervening four years?

Also, one of his best results was in Kentucky, where his vote almost tripled from 4,185 to 11,647. Did KY have a big German or Finnish population? Conversely, in WI, with it's huge German population, his vote rose "only" from 28,147 to 34,168.


That I don't know why. Why was that exactly? I assumed it was just lower and also that it was part of the general drop from the third to the fourth party systems.

That was probably a factor, but the drop from 1908 (turnout 65.4%) was exceptionally abrupt. And it would recover modestly to 61.6 in 1916. Probably it stemmed from a general awareness that the race was a foregone conclusion. As one realistic Bull Mooser put it "Vote for Roosevelt, pray for Taft, but bet on Wilson", and he could equally well have substituted the name of any other Democrat - save possibly Theodore Bilbo. So Republicans may have abstained because they knew it was hopeless, and Democrats because they knew it was in the bag. Also, some old Bryan Dems may have considered Wilson a poor substitute for The Commoner, and not really worthy of their votes.



Again, this is so true. In fact, 1904 proved that Bryan was not the worst candidate at all the Democrats could field. In 1896 he was the establishment breaker, but a decade later he was part of the established populist progressive wing of the party. Even many loyal conservative democrats in the north voted for him in 1908. And they certainly would support him over TR. Bryan lost NYC in 1896, but he won it in 1900 and 1908. So I agree with you fully.

Me too - 100%.

On the Prohibition front - OTL Bryan didn't come out for this until 1909 - ie after his third and final defeat - presumably because he knew many Democrats wouldn't like it. So if he has passed on 1908 and is keeping his powder dry for 1912, he may well postpone "coming out" on that issue.

Also, there'd be more than one way to approach it. He might compromise by advocating something akin to OTL's 21st Amendment, ie not mandating Prohibition but preventing any constitutional challenge to State Prohibition laws. Perhaps also a clause empowering Congress to legislate on this matter, but not obliging it to do so. That would probably suffice to keep most Democrats on board.
 
Bryan will sweep the South and most of the West. He will have a hard time appealing to immigrant voters, however, as he will put more emphasis on prohibition. If war still breaks out on schedule, and if Republicans advocate American involvement, they'll vote for him in 1916.

He was smart and would try his best to connect with them on Labour issues. How successful it would be is another story.

Then how come Debs' vote more than doubled between 1908 and 1912? Had there been a massive influx of Germans and Finns in the intervening four years?

Also, one of his best results was in Kentucky, where his vote almost tripled from 4,185 to 11,647. Did KY have a big German or Finnish population? Conversely, in WI, with it's huge German population, his vote rose "only" from 28,147 to 34,168.


That was not his only voter group. The socialists were also obtaining voters amongst miners and former populist farmers. And they did well in Oklahoma.
None of this is denied.


But, the socialist party at its base was that. And TR could have gotten the votes of progressive ethnics as well. It’s not certain for Debs.
 
But, the socialist party at its base was that. And TR could have gotten the votes of progressive ethnics as well. It’s not certain for Debs.

I didn't say or mean to imply that Debs would be the sole beneficiary. I assume that any defections from Bryan will "scatter", some to TR, some to Debs and some (most?) just not voting at all. Obviously TR would pick up some, but almost certainly far too few to make any difference.

Bryan Democrats were the kind of Dem likely to be most averse of all to the idea of voting for a Republican, which they saw as the party of the rich. My impression is that they were a very different breed from the middle-class Progressives who supported TR, and that switching parties would be a much tougher call for them than for the Cleveland Democrats who morphed into McKinley Republicans in the 1890s.
 
Last edited:
The one thing I've seen overlooked so far in the rosy pictures painted for Bryan is that he's a three time loser by the time 1912 rolls around, and that his message is getting shopworn if not outright tiresome. Also, there has to be something in the mind of the electorate looking at three time loser Bryan and saying to the Democrats, "Is that the best you could do?" At least with Roosevelt, he's a recent past president who went out on top and has a solid record of accomplishments. No matter how you slice it, you can't say that for Bryan.

Not sure how you'd account for the "here we go again..." factor, but I'm hard pressed to see how that wouldn't cut-significantly-into Bryan's vote totals. Faced with a choice between a relatively conservative, placid sitting president, a three time loser whose fourth verse to his theme song sounds a lot like the other three, and a dynamic former president with a pretty good record, that choice seems pretty easy to me--but then, I'll admit to a decided bias.
 
The one thing I've seen overlooked so far in the rosy pictures painted for Bryan is that he's a three time loser by the time 1912 rolls around, and that his message is getting shopworn if not outright tiresome. Also, there has to be something in the mind of the electorate looking at three time loser Bryan and saying to the Democrats, "Is that the best you could do?" At least with Roosevelt, he's a recent past president who went out on top and has a solid record of accomplishments. No matter how you slice it, you can't say that for Bryan.

Not sure how you'd account for the "here we go again..." factor, but I'm hard pressed to see how that wouldn't cut-significantly-into Bryan's vote totals. Faced with a choice between a relatively conservative, placid sitting president, a three time loser whose fourth verse to his theme song sounds a lot like the other three, and a dynamic former president with a pretty good record, that choice seems pretty easy to me--but then, I'll admit to a decided bias.
It really wouldn't cut that deep, if at all. The thing with Bryan is that, at least in the opinion of those of the time (this through the New York Times from my perspective), Bryan had a large and extensive personal following, that would have turned out and voted for him regardless of how the campaign was conducted. His losses did not dampen their opinions of the man, but seemed to always translate as to those who voted against Bryan as not understanding what he brought to the table, why he was better then McKinley or Taft. There is a reason why, despite three defeats over four electoral seasons, he maintained significant influence within the Democratic Party, and Party Bosses feared that there could be a Bryan candidacy just about every Presidential election from his first nomination till his death, minus 1916 anyway.

The only real question would be the Bourbon Democrats who typically ran from the ticket anytime Bryan was nominated, though it is a bit of a hard call as to how many such defections there would be on a State to State basis beyond vote comparisons. It is possible that such defections might have caused Bryan to fall into the upper 30's, but then the same question can be raised as to whether Bryan would appeal more to those voters who have opted for Roosevelt or Debs in comparison to Wilson, and in the latter case I think that is particularly apt given the Socialists poor performance in just about every race other then the Presidential one that year.

So, really, even if Bryan were to perform worse then Wilson, it would not be significantly worse, nor would it keep him from recording an electoral landslide.
 

SsgtC

Banned
It really wouldn't cut that deep, if at all. The thing with Bryan is that, at least in the opinion of those of the time (this through the New York Times from my perspective), Bryan had a large and extensive personal following, that would have turned out and voted for him regardless of how the campaign was conducted. His losses did not dampen their opinions of the man, but seemed to always translate as to those who voted against Bryan as not understanding what he brought to the table, why he was better then McKinley or Taft. There is a reason why, despite three defeats over four electoral seasons, he maintained significant influence within the Democratic Party, and Party Bosses feared that there could be a Bryan candidacy just about every Presidential election from his first nomination till his death, minus 1916 anyway.

The only real question would be the Bourbon Democrats who typically ran from the ticket anytime Bryan was nominated, though it is a bit of a hard call as to how many such defections there would be on a State to State basis beyond vote comparisons. It is possible that such defections might have caused Bryan to fall into the upper 30's, but then the same question can be raised as to whether Bryan would appeal more to those voters who have opted for Roosevelt or Debs in comparison to Wilson, and in the latter case I think that is particularly apt given the Socialists poor performance in just about every race other then the Presidential one that year.

So, really, even if Bryan were to perform worse then Wilson, it would not be significantly worse, nor would it keep him from recording an electoral landslide.
Sadly, I have to agree. TR and Taft might pick up a couple more states, but not enough to change the result.
 
The one thing I've seen overlooked so far in the rosy pictures painted for Bryan is that he's a three time loser by the time 1912 rolls around, and that his message is getting shopworn if not outright tiresome. Also, there has to be something in the mind of the electorate looking at three time loser Bryan and saying to the Democrats, "Is that the best you could do?" At least with Roosevelt, he's a recent past president who went out on top and has a solid record of accomplishments. No matter how you slice it, you can't say that for Bryan.

Not sure how you'd account for the "here we go again..." factor, but I'm hard pressed to see how that wouldn't cut-significantly-into Bryan's vote totals. Faced with a choice between a relatively conservative, placid sitting president, a three time loser whose fourth verse to his theme song sounds a lot like the other three, and a dynamic former president with a pretty good record, that choice seems pretty easy to me--but then, I'll admit to a decided bias.

No one is saying that having Bryan instead of Wilson couldn't have changed a percentage point or two. But is there the slightest reason to expect more than that?

When I study the figures, what strikes me is how little has really changed - at least at the Presidential level. The combined Taft/TR vote - 50.6% - is only 1% down on Taft's in 1908, and Wilson's 41.8% just 1.2% down on Bryan's. There has, as previously noted, been a massive drop in turnout, but it seems to have hit both sides about equally.

In short, all those who have in the past voted for Republican Presidents, have voted for one or other of the two on offer, while those who normally vote Democratic have voted - surprise, surprise - for the Democrat. There have been no obvious defections either way.

This is, of course, deceptive. In the Congressional races, Democrats made gains even in two-way contests, which would indicate that quite a few TR supporters must have voted Democratic for the HoR. But his presence on the ballot spared them - for one election - from having to choose whether to vote for a Democratic President. But this of course was only a reprieve. In 1916, with TR out of the game, the choice could no longer be avoided - and the Democrats soared to their highest popular vote for forty years! In short, there are the makings of a realignment in favour of the Democratic Party, but the Bull Moose intervention has made this a tad less obvious.

What I really don't understand is this persistent notion that somewhere out there are legions of Democrats ready at the drop of a hat to go Republican if the Democratic nominee is less than perfect in their eyes. Where is there the slightest evidence for this? Those Democrats who disliked Bryan to the point of joining the Republicans had already made that choice in the 1890s, and by 1912 that lode was long since mined out. And as 1904 showed, TR's appeal was essentially limited to a wing of the Republican Party. Democrats - even those who rejected Parker - showed little inclination to go over to him, and this seems to have been equally true in 1912.
 
It is possible that such defections might have caused Bryan to fall into the upper 30's, but then the same question can be raised as to whether Bryan would appeal more to those voters who have opted for Roosevelt or Debs in comparison to Wilson,

And of course those who OTL didn't vote at all. The 6.6% drop in turnout probably included quite a few Bryan people who couldn't be bothered to go to the polls for a lesser figure - esp one who was certain to win even without them.
 
On the Prohibition front - OTL Bryan didn't come out for this until 1909 - ie after his third and final defeat - presumably because he knew many Democrats wouldn't like it. So if he has passed on 1908 and is keeping his powder dry for 1912, he may well postpone "coming out" on that issue.

One final thought. If Bryan keeps the US out of WW1 - a virtual certainty - does Prohibition ever get through? OTL, wartime controls had already gone a long way towards drying up the country even before the 18A was voted on, and also got a boost from anti-German prejudice, as many of the brewers were Germans.

It would be a lovely historical joke if the election of a Prohibitionist POTUS were to prevent Prohibition from actually being enacted.
 
One final thought. If Bryan keeps the US out of WW1 - a virtual certainty - does Prohibition ever get through? OTL, wartime controls had already gone a long way towards drying up the country even before the 18A was voted on, and also got a boost from anti-German prejudice, as many of the brewers were Germans.

It would be a lovely historical joke if the election of a Prohibitionist POTUS were to prevent Prohibition from actually being enacted.


A successful Bryan presidency (boosting his popularity with keeping the nation out of the war) would allow him and his charisma to rally the public to support prohibition. Give him such a pedestal and he could do wonders.
 
A successful Bryan presidency (boosting his popularity with keeping the nation out of the war) would allow him and his charisma to rally the public to support prohibition. Give him such a pedestal and he could do wonders.
Would he pursue that over women suffrage though? Pursuing suffrage first might keep him away from prohibition given investment of time and prestige needed.
 
Irving Stone is rather damning of Bryan in his book "They Also Ran". It might be for the best that Bryan's primary contribution to the country was to radically alter the way in which presidential campaigns are conducted.
 
Irving Stone is rather damning of Bryan in his book "They Also Ran". It might be for the best that Bryan's primary contribution to the country was to radically alter the way in which presidential campaigns are conducted.

OTOH he is equally scathing about Henry Clay, and even rather implied that Fremont might have made a better Civil War President than Lincoln. So his views should perhaps be taken with a pinch of salt.
 
Last edited:
BTW, although I think Bryan would carry most of the states Wilson carried (apart from the ones he only carried narrowly) I do see two states where he would face real problems. In New York, Tammany--which he had suddenly discovered to be evil, after seeking its support in past races-- would go all-out to defeat him (even in 1908 he lost New York City, something unusual for a Democrat--and that was with Tammany's support, at least outwardly). In Missouri, Champ Clark didn't hate Wilson, but after the 1912 convention he did hate Bryan, and would go to almost any length to see him lose.
 
Top