The RNC forced the state parties to nominate Depew to block Roosevelt's nomination.
Crimson Banners Fly: The Rise of the American Left
- Thread starter PyroTheFox
- Start date
- Status
Thanks! Will do
The RNC made their deal with the reformists with the knowledge that their favored candidate would be the nominee regardless. Once Hanna died and McKinley lost faith in the other candidates' chances at defeating the Democrat (presumed to be Bryan at that point), the committee backpedaled and made sure Depew was renominated - through basically an AstroTurf "Draft Depew" movement. They held contempt for the progressives and weren't willing to risk Roosevelt remaking the Republican Party in his image, even if it meant a split ticket (ie; "Damn the consequences. We cannot let it fall into anarchy.").
Ignoring the fact that backstabbing has consequences, and that they might go caucus with the Dems?
When you view anyone with even slightly different political opinions with contempt, the consequences of screwing them tend to not enter your calculations. oops
They may have considered that consequence, but the RNC ITTL would rather suffer a temporary political setback than harm their lucrative relationships with the consolidators.
Part 3: Chapter X - Page 60 - 1904 DNC
Taking place some weeks after the heavily-publicized and tumultuous Republican convention in Chicago, the Democratic Party set in motion their own national nominating conference. Disquieted Democratic officials paid close attention to the happenings of the GOP gathering, frightful over the notion that a united opposing party could whisk away any competing candidacies. When they learned that Roosevelt forces induced a fissure within Republican ranks, however, Democrats' nervousness changed to joyousness. Basking in the news of the split opposition, confident delegates to the Democratic National Convention congregated at the St. Louis Exposition and Music Hall to designate their presidential choice.
As far as the race to the nomination was concerned, conservative Democrats all but guaranteed their victory. The Bourbon resurgence through the ranks of the DNC essentially guaranteed a pro-business bent cache of delegates. A minor assortment of anti-Bryan candidates looked to win over the hearts and minds of the new party leadership, proving their worth by gaining noteworthy state endorsements. Among this group was Alton B. Parker (D-NY), an appeals judge and close friend of David Hill, who made his name by upholding laissez-faire economics and ruling in favor of the constitutionality of unilateral legal contracts. He also fostered a reputation as a proponent of mild social reform due to an opinion concerning the legality of a maximum-hours law. Parker, as with fellow Bourbon candidates Senator Arthur P. Gorman and Representative Charles H. Weisse (D-WI), sought to disassociate the "fluke" Bryan period from grander Democratic Party history, often refusing to name the former president when recollecting the achievements of Democracy past.
Nonetheless, Democrats in the Bryan vein stayed a distinguishable presence at the festivities and the party at large. Taking into account President Bryan's dynamic term as elected leader of the United States and the populistic legislative measures he vehemently fought to pass, it would be foolish to believe his influence disappeared completely. The voters Bryan introduced to his political faction now composed a sizable delegation despite recent committee operations to expunge them. They, in all likelihood, had a far stronger chance at influencing the national platform than reformist Republicans could have ever hoped to attain at their convention. That aspect notwithstanding, the presumed inevitable nomination of a conservative figure was an open secret.
Bryan, suffering through a bout of chest pains and fever, begrudgingly opted against personally attending the convention. Instead, members of his former administration traveled to St. Louis and respectfully acted on the Nebraskan's behalf and spoke in his defense. When Temporary Chairman John Sharp Williams (D-MS), in an introductory speech, shifted from decrying "On one hand, the timidity and worthlessness of Depew-ism," and "Roosevelt-ism - its volcanic, eruptive, and reckless character," to the "shameful rise of the Popocrats and [their proposed] tyrannical encroachment of the federal government," the Bryan Democrats, including former State Secretary Stone, shouted against the speaker. Williams paused for a brief moment as the argumentative atmosphere calmed, but this overt antagonism of Bryan's presidential actions and proposed reforms would continue to plague the convention.
The progressively-minded wing of the party, with accompanying cheers of support by the overtly pro-Bryan galleries, boldly struggled to maintain the existence of a reform-based party platform as conservatives threatened its deterioration. Representative Hearst, present as a delegate from New York, repeatedly captained the charge to defend the more radical planks, including those criticizing Depew's refusal to prosecute the Northern Securities Trust. The New Yorker, who, at the insistence of Bryan, scuttled a planned run at the nomination, competently commanded the Bryan delegation and successfully won the platform bout against Hill and the Bourbons. "Speaking as a faithful servant of Democracy and a citizen of the United States," Hearst affirmed, "it is our duty to instill [...] democratic values, those commending an economic doctrine of fairness and condemning criminal combinations as elemental positions!"
By the point that the platform debates settled down and the Bryan Democrats were placated, the conservatives (constituting a majority of delegates) decided to go all-in on the presidential nomination. Previously, Parker, possessing a moderate record and bare appeal to reformers, had been perceived as the party's frontrunner. Bryan found Parker professionally abhorrent and doubted his credibility on economic issues, but, noting the frontrunner's anti-imperialist foreign policy position, the former president was expected to (tepidly) endorse the judge. "Not one modicum of compromise," telegraphed Hill in a private correspondence to Williams on July 7th. "Condoning [Bryan's] thievery is a step I will not take. I do not intend on assuaging the Popocrats - I intend on humiliating them."
I am very familiar with the story. Mind you, this was long before we packed up and moved our family to the state house. My Dad was in his late 20s, and had just been nominated for the Texas House [of Representatives]. Being a newcomer to the world of politics, and an impressionable young Populist, he was asked by [former Interior Secretary] Jim Hogg if he had any interest in attending the national convention that year in St. Louis. Well, my father practically begged my poor mother to leave for the trip, and, bless her heart, she said yes. Now, he hadn't ever been to St. Louis, and never before had he witnessed such an impressive assortment of Democrats from all corners of the country. He was amazed by the ceremonies, taken in by the music and splendor reminiscent of our State Fair.
Hogg, a Texas delegate, was part of a group who intended on casting a protest vote, of sorts, for former President Bryan. My father sat there as the roll call took off, and closely watched as Hogg's face changed. "It was like ice cream melting in the sun," he'd told me. Something had happened, something that soured the whole convention. Hogg shot up and with a hefty gruff turned tail and stomped right out. His young companion, of course, followed and asked for what reason they were hurrying out. He'd never forgot the words Hogg said next. "They've seen fit to cast Democracy out and sell it to the bankers and the trusts. God almighty, this can't happen here. This is our party, this is Bryan's party. We'll teach 'em a lesson, even if we gotta let that cowboy Roosevelt sit in for a spell."
Lyndon B. Johnson, Executive Director of the Poverty Abolition Administration, Quoted in The Seven Flags of Texas, 1968
Last edited:
Well that's interesting, wonder what the seventh flag is. Also, LBJ in charge of poverty abolition is something to take note of.
A Roosevelt-Bryant Democrat joint progressive ticket? That would be pretty cool to see. And likely to succeed as well, because it sounds like the Republicans and Democrats are going to be running on basically the exact same ultra-pro business platform only with slightly different rhetoric.
Part 3: Chapter X - Page 61 - 1904 PNC
Theodore Roosevelt Speaking Outside of the Chicago Convention Hall, August 3rd, 1904- Source: Wiki Commons
Effectively routed out of the major parties, devotees of social and industrial justice met that August to form a brand-new political force. Tens of thousands of individuals, men and women alike, joined together at the Chicago Coliseum with a newfound hope that the presidency could inspire a new generation to enact profound and fundamental change. Many of them shared the perspective of Governor La Follette in determining Theodore Roosevelt, not Chauncey Depew, the true successor to the Beveridge legacy. More so than mere inspiration by the war secretary, however, these convention go-ers sought to forge a permanent and independent third pillar of national politics apart from those restrained by the crooked bosses.
The mass delegation soon came to order under provisional Chairman Craig W. Wadsworth. A diplomat serving in Roosevelt's War Department and an enlistee of the Rough Riders, Wadsworth initiated the ceremonies with a brief recollection of the activities of the St. Louis convention. "The supreme, controlling influence of notorious bosses in both the Republican and Democratic parties have seen fit to cast aside the will of the people for their own self-interests. Both nominees serve the invisible government and abide by the rule of trusts." The diplomat drove into the ills of Depew and Olney, unhesitatingly lambasting their incorrigible resistance to prosecuting Northern Securities and their disregard of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Consolidation preyed on the laborer, Wadsworth proclaimed, and "in all industries their rise had led to our desolation." He put forward the idea that the growth of tobacco trusts, for instance, was directly leading to exponential rise in tobacco prices.
Following a protracted standing ovation, Wadsworth motioned for James R. Garfield, son of the former President Garfield and political advisor to Roosevelt, to begin calling for votes on the various platform planks submitted for approval. To be certain, this diverse audience of delegates were believers in active government and stern regulation, but they were far from radicals. The delegation approved of stipulations calling for a nationalized eight-hour working day law, the abolition of child labor, and a constitutional amendment protecting the rights of workers of organize. However, they disapproved two measures regarding wage laws and compensation for work-related injuries. By a hair, the delegation accepted a plank calling for women's suffrage, yet overwhelmingly rejected one that more broadly referred to "universal suffrage." As a whole, the platform could clearly be touted as a remarkable and progressive step, but it candidly failed to go as far as it could have.
"We trust in the foundational principles of the Union," declared Pennsylvania delegate Thomas Leonard, "of representative government and our sacred beliefs in life and liberty. Managers of the Republican and Democratic parties look to these principles with disdain. We look at them as the very spirit that makes America breathe. [...] Colonel Roosevelt will carry it forward." The standard bearer for this peculiar arrangement was already clear as day, yet an air of anticipation nonetheless circulated throughout the arena as it was brought to order. On the second day of the affair, Wadsworth announced the arrival of the gathering's presumed nominee. "Gentlemen of the Convention: The next President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt."
Roosevelt stepped up to the platform, escorted by the provisional committee, and began speaking. He addressed the delegation warmly, commending them for dedicating themselves to the "first National Convention of the Progressive Party," and declaring that the hour arrived for a realignment of American politics.
This new movement is a movement of truth, sincerity, and wisdom, a movement which proposes to put at the service of all our people the collective power of the people, through their Governmental agencies, alike in the nation and in the several states. Our fight is a fundamental fight against both of the old corrupt party machines, for both are under the dominion of the plunder league of the professional politicians who are controlled and sustained by the great beneficiaries of privilege and reaction. No better proof can be given than this of the fact that the fundamental concern of the privileged interests is to beat the new party.
Some of them would rather beat it with Mr. Depew; others would rather beat it with Mr. Olney; but the difference between Mr. Depew and Mr. Olney they consider as trivial, as a mere matter of personal preference. Their real fight is for either, as against the Progressives. They represent the allied Reactionaries of the country, and they are against the new party because to their unerring vision it is evident that the real danger to privilege comes from the new party, and from the new party alone. Having served from my post as Secretary of War, until my recent resignation, I know firsthand the inadequacies and miseries epitomized in this administration. Our aim, to secure government by and for the people, not government by and for the monopoly, is unanswerable in the present administration. Our aim is to control business, not to strangle it--and, above all, not to continue a policy of make-believe strangle toward big concerns that do evil, and constant menace toward both big and little concerns that do well. Our aim is to promote prosperity, and then see to its proper division.
The Progressive proposal is definite. It is practicable. We promise nothing that we cannot carry out. We promise nothing which will jeopardize honest business. We promise adequate control of all big business and the stern suppression of the evils connected with big business, and this promise we can absolutely keep. Our Government system should be so shaped that the public servant, when he cannot conscientiously carry out the wishes of the people, shall at their desire leave his office and not misrepresent them in office; and I hold that the public servant can by so doing, better than in any other way, serve both them and his conscience.
Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive Convention Speech, August 2nd, 1904
This speech, as delivered by the Rough Rider candidate, forever thrust the Progressive Party onto the national stage in a way that would have proven otherwise impossible. Roosevelt's careful maneuverability around the issues, addressing the deep-seated popular concerns of economic injustice while not leaning into socialist philosophy, seemed to go just far enough to satisfy everyone. He dedicated the bulk of his introductory message to the plight of trust-busting, but did momentarily focus on the need to modernize the state department, enact Beveridge's plan for a bipartisan tariff commission, and create new avenues for direct decision making by voters through state-wide primary elections.
On the third and final day of the convention, as the religious fervor of the delegation rose to its highest peak, the convention unanimously selected Theodore Roosevelt as their nominee. At the insistence of Roosevelt, and perhaps in contrast to the wishes of the committee to award La Follette for his efforts at the Republican Convention, the delegates approved William Howard Taft for vice president. Taft, a federal judge known for upholding the validity of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the rights of workers to take part in labor strikes, mildly supported his friend's break from the Republican Party yet wholeheartedly endorsed his fight for the presidency. Roosevelt hoped, especially with the congenial Taft on the ticket, to entice vacillating moderate Republican voters and, furthermore, exemplify the party's image as the true successor to the antiquated GOP.
Last edited:
Part 3: Chapter X - Page 62
"Latest Arrival at the Political Zoo," Published in Harper's Weekly, August 20th, 1904 - Source: Wiki Commons
Upon the closing of the Progressive National Convention, a sort of catharsis rushed over certain activists and political officials. Just when it appeared as though the presidential election was restrained to two humdrum, ardently pro-corporate septuagenarians, the young and boisterous Roosevelt burst through. Former Secretary Hay wrote of his experience in the early part of Roosevelt's presidential campaign, describing, "supporters from all legions and races united by the Progressive movement and willing it forward." He went on, remarking that Progressive base comprehended no outcome apart from landslide victory. "They are sickened by the conscienceless greed of one party and the unscrupulous demagoguery of the other." On first glance, the future looked bright for the insurgent. Still, the mainstream candidates would hardly go gentle into that good night.
President Depew, absolutely certain in his promising chances, earnestly ignited his re-election in the late summer of 1904. His campaign based itself in nostalgic Republican principles and primarily ran on the maintenance of prosperity. Depew ads commonly made use of historical GOP symbolism, often comparing the achievements of Abraham Lincoln with the "dishonor and calamity" of Cleveland and Bryan. The incumbent, per tradition, operated a front-porch style method of campaigning as opposed to the exhausting whistle-stop undertaking by Bryan and Beveridge. Depew also collected support from a wide array of financiers eager to invest in the continued dominance of fiscal conservative leadership. The bulwark of the Republican elite, with unquestionable backing by the RNC, steered these financial interests to Depew's national campaign for re-election.
One of the chief organizers for the Depew Campaign, Whitelaw Reid, later cataloged some of the campaign's advantages and disadvantages in his memoirs. "Our difficulties in the campaign were largely lessened by the natural support of proponents for sound money and distinguished governing. And yet there is a point on which I frankly cannot contend. The number of men devoted to the glorious record of the President did not appear to match that of General Harrison. I wondered if occasionally our national standing may not have been rightly interpreted, or if the press shut their eyes to the finest prosperity of our time." Apart from lesser sized crowds, Depew also lost precious momentum early on with news that several members of the national committee had resigned in a show of camaraderie with Roosevelt. McKinley, who shadowed over the campaign, paid little attention to these resignations and urged business as usual.
Democratic-affiliated corporate interests, those which immeasurably fueled Cleveland's three presidential runs and promptly abandoned ship when Bryan took command, returned to the fold upon news of Richard Olney's nomination. Unfathomably influential figures like J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carnegie endorsed Olney above the fray, assured in the former state secretary's resistance to economic populism and Beveridge-esque rabid imperialism. The Olney Campaign, a loose coalition of elderly Gold Bug Democrats, veterans of the second Cleveland Administration, and retired Democratic officeholders was regularly mocked in the Republican press as a "Brigade of Old Men." His funding, as secured by conservative cohorts in the business community, was adequately sufficient to run the national operation, but the campaign generally could not win adoration outside of the solidly Democratic South.
At the Democratic National Convention, when Judge Parker deliberately bowed out prior to the roll call in order to sneakily coalesce his delegates behind the Olney dark horse candidacy, Bryan Democrats were outraged. The Bryan base - agrarian workers, industrial laborers, and former Populist Party affiliates - had already realized the inevitable success of a conservative to the ticket, but they concluded that the nomination of this particular Bourbon was a step too far. Recall, if you will, former Secretary Olney's falsified statements to the press regarding Bryan's languishing commitment to Free Silver and the subsequent spiraling of the latter's re-election campaign. For this, Hill and the Bourbons adored Olney, but Bryan detested him. Only a sparse few went as far as to bolt from the ceremony altogether upon the shocking coronation of Richard Olney, but it swiftly became apparent that the party elite sought to do all they could to remove even the bare semblance of Bryanism from their midst.
The DNC remained confident that, when faced with the prospects of a second Depew term, the Bryan forces would eventually come around and tepidly support the ticket. As written by Ackerman, "The conservative victory at the convention was squarely meant to deflate and humiliate William J. Bryan and his alleged 'Wild People', as Senator Gorman so colorfully put it. Hill trusted that the grey malaise encompassing President Depew's time in office practically guaranteed a win for their side. The Bryanites were merely an accessory - an expendable feature not needed to return the White House to Democratic hands. Grover Cleveland's active assistance boosted Olney's favor ability in New York while the DNC's choice of vice president, North Carolinian robber baron and KKK-defender Julian S. Carr, did the same for North Carolina and surrounding states." As for Theodore Roosevelt, "he was the furthest thing from [Olney's] mind until the September 9th issue of 'The Commoner' released."
My selection as standard-bearer of the Democratic Party in 1896 and again in 1900 made me the nominal leader of that party, and as such I contented myself with the defense of those principles and policies which were embodied in the platform. Now, that the leadership devolves upon another and I bear only the responsibility that each citizen must bear, namely, responsibility for my opinions. [...] Consolidation after consolidation has taken place until a few men now control the railroad traffic of the country and inaction on the part of both the legislative and executive powers has led us here. The trusts have long corrupted the politics of the nation. How can this corruption be stopped so long as enormous wealth has breached the core of both Republican and Democratic leaderships?
If Mr. Olney is elected will his administration rid us of imperialism and address the influence of trusts? The Republican Party is growing more and more plutocratic and it can furnish a home for all who believe in the rule of wealth. The Democratic Party cannot be a plutocratic party; it cannot disappoint the hopes of its members. Mr. Olney leads Democracy down this path and for these reasons I shall not vote for Olney and Carr, the nominees of the Democratic National Convention. [...] I do not and cannot abide by a program that stands for the spirit of war in place of peace, force in place of arbitration, subjugation in place of coordination. On the imperialism question, no candidate has supplied a sufficient response. With regards to the trust question, we have but one presently opposed to the control of Wall Street and the consolidation of American industry. It is for this reason that I feel justified in supporting the Progressive platform.
William J. Bryan, "The State of Democracy," The Commoner, September 9th, 1904
The former president's anticipated statement, initially presumed by most major publications a delayed, unenthusiastic endorsement of the Democratic nominee, stunned the central committees of both major parties. In a dramatic turnabout, the electrifying orator chose to side with the Progressive Party against the Democrats and, through subtext, Theodore Roosevelt against Richard Olney. War Secretary Roosevelt, the man who worked his damndest to crush Bryan's candidacy in 1900, was now, for all intents and purposes, backed by the formidable Bryan contingent. The platform, apparently, made all the difference. It was no accident that the Progressives painted their foreign policy proposals in incredibly broad strokes despite their nominee's position on the matter. It was a clear olive branch to Bryan - and the orator noticed.
Part 3: Chapter X - Page 63
As the forthcoming date of the people's choice draws near, it is unclear who stands the best chance of being the next President of the United States. Our correspondents reported growing favor among thousands of Republicans for Theodore Roosevelt, the nominee for the Progressive Party. They have confirmed equal enthusiasm from Democrats for their candidate, Richard Olney. [...] The Tribune secured forecasts of leading newspapers in the various States and based its figures on their estimates. The results tabulated were secured by scores of the leading newspapers of the nation, supplemented in a few cases by the estimates of the Republican State chairmen in States unquestionably Democratic or Republican. In the so-called doubtful States, however, the figures of the press have been depended upon without exception. The results obtained and included in the forecast show a number of significant indications, not the least important of which is the apparent three-way tie between Depew, Olney, and Roosevelt.
The New York Tribune, October 26th, 1904
With major business interests split betwixt the two major parties, Roosevelt and the Progressive Party sought to secure funding through novel methods. Instead of bowing to major corporate interests and promising no fundamental change, the former war secretary appealed to small businesses for investment and to the people directly for support. Thousands of smaller commercial ventures, chiefly those based along the West coast, endorsed Roosevelt and his proposal to end the merger wave. He also acquired the assistance of Frank A. Munsey, owner of The Boston Journal and the Washington Times, who pledged about $100,000 to the campaign and ran Progressive-friendly articles throughout his printed works. In avenues apart from direct funding, the Roosevelt Campaign benefited greatly from a handful of official endorsements in the autumn of 1904. These included Leonard Wood, a Republican associate and fellow veteran of the Spanish-American War, and Seth Low (R-NY), the former Mayor of New York City.
The endorsements of Wood and Low further rose the legitimacy of Roosevelt's presidential run and, as such, his infant third party. In fact, nearly every member of the imperialist and reformist contingents of the Republican Party, in addition to hardline Beveridge devotees, celebrated Roosevelt as a worthy successor to the late president. "It is only suitable," wrote a contributor to the New York Times in late-October, "to honor the legacy of our fallen president by voting in the candidate most representative of his positions and most inclined to build upon his legacy." It took a bit of time for the tree to bear fruit, but La Follette's plan prevailed. Progressives, concentrating solely on electing Roosevelt to the presidency (they opted against fielding statewide candidates), appealed to the wide array of Republicans dissatisfied with Depew and the Old Guard. "Theodore Roosevelt, and he alone, best exemplifies the spirit and values of the twentieth century."
As weighted pressure markedly increased for the major party candidates, the onus fell to Depew and Olney to propel ahead. For the most part, the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees disregarded the third party insurgency as a humorous non-entity in the election, thereby exclusively delivering fire onto each other. When not expressing reverence to Bourbon Democracy, former Secretary Olney forcefully critiqued President Depew for his negligence in office and the "needless, pernicious raising of the tariff as if enacting vengeance on American laborers." In turn, Depew gleefully responded with accusations of his own, correlating Olney's experience in the Cleveland Administration with the Panic of 1893 and the rise of Bryan. "Democratic buffoonery," the president snarled in passing, "has no place guiding policy in the United States. [...] If they refrain from telling any lies about the Republican Party, I'll promise not to tell the truth about the Democrats."
Depew had managed to pass one final, significant initiative as his campaign sunk knee-deep in the election frenzy. This measure, a trade pact with Germany, was orchestrated by State Secretary John Bassett Moore as U.S. business interests pondered trans-Pacific trade opportunities. The German Empire controlled an assortment of notable sea ports in the Pacific and, over the last several decades, had steadily grown into an exceptional regional superpower. Sometime after the Chicago convention, Depew and his State Department connected with Ambassador of the German Empire to the U.S., Hermann Speck von Sternburg. Secretary Moore had already fostered a fond relationship with the ambassador after the U.S. condoned the 1902 European naval blockade of Venezuela, so Sternburg took little convincing. In the end, the Depew Administration was successful in drawing the trade agreement: Mainly composing of new, cooperative shipping lanes around German New Guinea and U.S. possessions in the Pacific.
This diplomatic milestone for the United States delivered precisely what Pacific-oriented commercial interests desired, and it was completed peacefully to boot. The Republican press perceived the finalized pact as a solid first step on the road to obtaining an international trade presence, and, more so, lauded it as a foundation for future opportunities with German holdings (much to the distaste of Britain). Republican operatives of the Depew Campaign started to exploit the deal for their own electoral purposes once the possibility arose of a tight election. They hoped to depict the diplomatic achievement as a pinnacle of Depew's dexterity on foreign matters, opposing it to Olney's indifference to overseas policy and Roosevelt's purebred jingoism. Alas, the news seemed ultimately unable to counter prevailing negative connotations of Depew as a figurehead for plutocracy.
At the height of election fervor, as Depew, Olney, Roosevelt and Debs all worked to villainize their presidential adversaries and win over the rather unpredictable will of the voters, a New York newsmagazine explored methodologies to better elucidate that electorate. In the 1902 midterms, as senatorial candidates were being judged directly by voters, political analysts realized that examining older data or the makeup of state legislatures now seemed pointless in predicting future results. The difficulty in perceiving public opinion prior to the 1902 senate elections was said to have inspired publisher Isaac Kaufmann Funk, founder and owner of The Literary Digest, to research modern approaches for gauging this opinion. The Manhattan-based publication itself was a simple general interest magazine, as opposed to any sort of strictly political or partisan paper, so Funk believed his readership to be a nonpartisan sample of the general electorate.
Following consultation with patron Robert Joseph Cuddihy, Funk concluded it necessary to conduct a straw poll of his audience to discover their presidential preferences. Assured in the idea that his audience was composed equally of Republicans and Democrats, he hoped this this polling measure would accurately evaluate pre-election sentiment leading into the 1904 presidential race. After sending out more than two million ballots, the publication released its findings on the eve of the election.
Last edited:
Oooh boy here we go! I love a contested election.
Just binge read this--it's fantastically written and seems impressively researched.
I'm writing a timeline with a POD in the same time and the same general topic (socialism in America), and I'm honestly amused by how many of the ideas I've yet to even write down you've beaten me to to the punch on.
Just binge read this--it's fantastically written and seems impressively researched.
I'm writing a timeline with a POD in the same time and the same general topic (socialism in America), and I'm honestly amused by how many of the ideas I've yet to even write down you've beaten me to to the punch on.
Maybe~ or not
Thank you! Great minds think alike - I'll be checking out your TL
- Status