AHC/Plausibility Check/WI: A Bourbon Democrat running in 1896 and wining

What I need is early recovery of the american economy before the 1896 election, whose merit goes to Grover Clevaland's second administration, helping the Bourbon democrats to remain in control of the party, to run a bourbon candidate in this election (may be William F. Vilas or William E. Russell) and to win it. The POD would be after the election of 1892.

I wanted to know your opinion, if it is plausible and the consecuences. What can the POD be? Can this TL end with a party system of conservative democrats and leftist populists, with the Republican Party disapearing and the Democrats winning in the east, the populists in the west and both fignting for winning the south?
 
In my honest opinion, the best POD would be during the Panic of 1893. President Cleverland, a staunch believer in the gold standard, refused to inflate the money supply with silver, thus alienating the agrarian populist wing of the Democratic Party.

In my opinion, if John G. Carlisle, Having been Representative of Kentucky for 13 years, six of which was spent as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives before being elected Senator, he went onto become Cleveland's and the 41st Secretary of the Treasury.

Carlisle was in favor of coining silver, but not for free coinage, if he is able to persuade, Cleveland, to take on silver coins, to deal with the depression, Carlisle would look like an economic hero.

With OTL Kentucky, being won by the Republican's by 0.06%

I would suggest a Carlisle and James B. Metcalfe ticket.

Metcalfe, a Mississippi born, Californian taught lawyer and the state of Washington's first Attorney General.
 
It may be an idea, but it is contrary to what we could call "bourbon principles" and it would alianate the bourbon faction of the Democratic party, of whom Cleveland was the standard-bearer. I was thinking in the pasage of the Wilson Tariff by the Senate without amendments, lowering the tariff, or an early discovery of gold in Yukon.
 
Derek Jackson, that is one of the things I wanted to know. IOTL both democrats and populists lost in the House elections of 1894 and 1896, as the republicans won. Without those republican victories, the populists could do better. But I need to know other opinios and views, especially of people who know better this subjet.
 
Top