Let's say that he runs again or fixes the DNC to gain renomination. Is there any way he can defeat McKinley or any other Republican nominee?
Or he can delay sending in the troops till after the DNC is concluded, and I doubt that McKinley would make an issue of it, though the Democratic left will go apeshit as per OTL. Why did he use federal troops and not have the IL governor use the National Guard, which seems more appropriate?
Altgeld, however, refused to authorize President Grover Cleveland to send in Federal troops to quell the disturbances. But on July 4, 1894, Cleveland went ahead and sent several thousand troops to Chicago without Altgeld's approval, an action later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Altgeld's opposition was seen as a highly unusual stance for a state governor at that time
So, how does the election turn out? It seems that the Rose Garden strategy works best since trade is far too explosive at the tail end of a severe recession.
Cleveland's popularity had cratered in 1896. If he somehow got the nomination, he may well have come in third in the electoral college behind McKinley and the Populist candidate - probably Tom Watson.
In fact, it's an interesting POD, because it's possible this would have lead to Democrats getting largely replaced by Populists. (Democrats might survive for awhile as one half of a two-party Populist/Democrat system in the South.)
Cleveland's popularity had cratered in 1896. If he somehow got the nomination, he may well have come in third in the electoral college behind McKinley and the Populist candidate - probably Tom Watson.
In fact, it's an interesting POD, because it's possible this would have lead to Democrats getting largely replaced by Populists. (Democrats might survive for awhile as one half of a two-party Populist/Democrat system in the South.)
Mowque said:I don't think it'll be this bad, but the Democrats will certainly look out of touch! I mean, they are ignoring the strong platforms (economics, bimeltaism). How can they compete with the Republicans on anything else? Without the fire that Bryan (and his supporters) brought, it'll be a big shellacking.
Never that great a movement? The Bourbons controlled the party for 160 years, from its inception to 1896, plus kept control over fiscal and trade policy, Bryan nominations aside, until FDR.
No it would be that Bad, the only advantage Cleveland has here over the National Democrats is that he's not in his late 70's. Also, you and I have talked about this before. Bryan wasn't the End all Be all of the populist movement, he was just the man who hijacked it to his own ends. He didn't light any fires, he just used the already lit fire to cook up his own strike out.
That is basically what I tried to say, maybe it came out wrong.
Edit: Japhy, why do you think Cleveland would do so much worse then, say Parker did later on?
This. The Panic of 1893 destroyed Cleveland.Cleveland's popularity had cratered in 1896. If he somehow got the nomination, he may well have come in third in the electoral college behind McKinley and the Populist candidate - probably Tom Watson.
In fact, it's an interesting POD, because it's possible this would have lead to Democrats getting largely replaced by Populists. (Democrats might survive for awhile as one half of a two-party Populist/Democrat system in the South.)
This. The Panic of 1893 destroyed Cleveland.
Well the Long Depression had been going on for years. Had things turned around before 1896 Cleveland would take the credit for it. Being as the Depression ended when the amount of Gold in circulation rose, and we know where those new finds were located, we can simply save Cleveland by having South African and Yukon gold be found say in 1894.
I think the Third Term barrier would still scuttle any chance Cleveland has.
Ackerman's book "Dark Horse" about Garfield's election discusses how concerns about a third term effectively prevented Grant's chances at the GOP convention in 1880. While he didn't have the votes to win on the first ballot, Grant was the favorite when the convention began.
The opposition to Grant didn't rest on the corruption of his two administrations, that was blamed Grant's appointees rather than Grant himself. Instead, those opposed to Grant were concerned about the very open way he had campaigned for the nomination and violating the Third Term precedent. Grant's opponents eventually coalesced around Garfield, who was only at the convention to support John Sherman's bid.
If Third Term concerns helped prevent the GOP from nominating a favorite son like Grant, the Democrats aren't going to nominate Cleveland for a third term no matter what the economy is doing.
Most likely if the Economy is continuing to go well for Cleveland come 1896 he'd move towards going for a third term but as opposed to Grant in 1880 or Wilson in 1920, he might back down in time for another member of his camp to step up and win the nomination before the Machines or the Western Democrats can rally against him.