1912 Congressional Elections
Senate
Democratic: 36 (-7)
Republican: 32 (-2)
Progressive: 28 (+9)
House **
Progressive: 148 (+47)
Republican: 139 (-9)
Democratic: 121 (-15)
Socialist: 16 (+10)
Independent: 11 (+9)
Senate Leadership
Senate President Not Yet Determined
President pro tempore Augustus O. Bacon (D-GA)
Caucus Chairman Robert L. Owen (D-OK)
Conference Chairman Charles W. Fairbanks (R-IN)
Conference Chairman Robert La Follette (P-WI)
House of Representatives Leadership
Speaker Wesley L. Jones (P-CA)
Minority Leader James R. Mann (R-IL)
Minority Leader Oscar Underwood (D-AL)
Minority Leader Victor L. Berger (S-WI)
Minority Leader Daniel A. Driscoll (I-NY)
Senate
Democratic: 36 (-7)
Republican: 32 (-2)
Progressive: 28 (+9)
House **
Progressive: 148 (+47)
Republican: 139 (-9)
Democratic: 121 (-15)
Socialist: 16 (+10)
Independent: 11 (+9)
Senate Leadership
Senate President Not Yet Determined
President pro tempore Augustus O. Bacon (D-GA)
Caucus Chairman Robert L. Owen (D-OK)
Conference Chairman Charles W. Fairbanks (R-IN)
Conference Chairman Robert La Follette (P-WI)
House of Representatives Leadership
Speaker Wesley L. Jones (P-CA)
Minority Leader James R. Mann (R-IL)
Minority Leader Oscar Underwood (D-AL)
Minority Leader Victor L. Berger (S-WI)
Minority Leader Daniel A. Driscoll (I-NY)
Coinciding with the presidential race was the similarly heated elections for Congress. Voters not only had to fend with a monster of a ballot concerning the five-man contest for the White House, but they too cast their preference for congressional identification. Leaving aside the Progressive slant of the national Popular Vote, the odds that the incoming president would line-up ideologically with the incoming Congress were exceptionally slim. Nevertheless, the Columbian torch shone bright as the insurgent faction captured enough House seats to outnumber either of their rival parties. Furthermore, the Socialists more than doubled their congressional representation. The elder two political organizations did not fare quite so well in 1912.
The splinter within the ranks of the Democratic Party immeasurably affected the contentious election on the presidential stage, but that aspect also played a role on congressional, state, and local levels. Democratic voters were, overall, less likely to turn out to vote in 1912 than in any prior contest in the past decade. Some historians attribute that facet to Hearst rallying his supporters against the whole of the party establishment and its national committee (in addition to its sitting legislators). It is also speculated that Democratic turnout was generally depressed due to the presence of the unpopular incumbent with a lackluster record. Governor Marshall hoped to persuade voters to back a Congress receptive to their agenda, but his team performed about as poorly in 1912 as they had in 1904. This was nowhere near a 1894-esque disaster, but it did the Jeffersonian branch no favors.
A small assortment of pro-administration Democrats joined with the president's break from the party system and likewise ran as independents. Fewer than ten managed to retain congressional office after partaking in this stunt, and zero independent challengers found success. Like with Hearst, nonaffiliated candidates were largely unable to find a coherent base in the already-divided field. Only fellow Democrats seemed fascinated at all by the so-called "Civic League" (a la Hearst's Civic Liability Program) class of representatives, meaning their sole legacy had been segmenting the Democratic portion of the national electorate. This group would eventually create its own House caucus led by avid Hearst Democrat Daniel Driscoll (I-NY).
Vote-splitting and Hearst-like resentment toward the Democratic Party for allegedly conspiring to rob the incumbent of the nomination dramatically changed the outcome of the Senate races. Deeply entrenched senators like Ben Tillman (D-SC) and Furnifold Simmons (D-NC) encountered huge drop-offs in their respective vote totals. Simmons, who in 1906 was unopposed for re-election, defeated Republican and Independent Democratic challengers with a mere 14% margin to spare. For incumbents in the Solid South, this problem was a curious footnote. Yet, to those in swing states, this development proved an utter nightmare. Senator Ebe Tunnell, for example, (D-DE) lost his race by an astonishing 14% to Butler-backed Republican opponent Harry Richardson. Even in Kentucky, a state that had elected almost entirely Democrats since the Civil War, the Democratic incumbent fell to a member of the typically maligned GOP. In total, 40% of the Democratic-held Class 2 Senate seats were vanquished in the 1912 elections.
Republican candidates, on the whole, failed to capitalize on the political atmosphere in the same vein as Speaker Butler. The GOP nominee's ability to tie federal stagnation and corruption with Hearst whilst avoiding pledges to abide by popular, progressive policies turned out to be particularly pivotal. Very few could, or desired to, replicate Butler's strategy. Conservative Republicans ran as conservatives, and for this they paid a heavy price, electorally. Appointed replacements for retiring or deceased senators unanimously fell to more Progressive challengers. Former Lieutenant Governor Lawrence Sherman of Illinois, the designated successor to Senate titan and a self-proclaimed economic moderate Shelby Cullom, crumbled to avid pro-regulatory Representative Frank Hamilton Funk (P-IL) when the former opted to run his campaign on the principles of strict conservatism and opposition to Theodore Roosevelt. More so demonstrating that Butler represented an aberration of the norm, liberally minded Senator Knute Nelson (R-MN) formally ran his re-election campaign as a member of the Progressives. Of this decision, Nelson only remarked that Minnesotans stood to benefit more from the Progressive platform than that of the GOP.
Once the outcome became clear, that of a mass influx of Progressives asserting genuine power in the legislature, those newly elected congressmen gleefully awaited the assumed anointment of their influential standard-bearer on the presidential level. It was thought by Progressive politicians that Roosevelt would carry a discernible mandate, if not in a surefire landslide. New York's call for the former president rallied this crowd toward the belief that their prediction would soon be validated. When Pennsylvania and Ohio slipped through the cracks, however, Roosevelt's congressional champions faced a completely new and unanticipated reality. Regardless of their promising moves to prevail in these congressional elections, the duty of selecting a president and vice president in a contingent election fell to the outgoing class. Barring any further surprises, the Republican-majority House and Democratic-majority Senate of the seemingly expired 62nd Congress would be tasked with deciding the race. In the kindest possible terms, the Progressives were supremely outraged at that discovery and braced for the fight of their lives.
Senators Elected in 1912 (Class 2)
John H. Bankhead (D-AL): Democratic Hold, 93%
John N. Heiskell (D-AR): Democratic Hold, 69%
Frank Catlin (P-CO): Progressive Gain, 48%
Henry A. Richardson (R-DE): Republican Gain, 48%
Augustus Bacon (D-GA): Democratic Hold, 91%
William E. Borah (P-ID): Progressive Hold, 51%
Frank H. Funk (P-IL): Progressive Gain, 44%
William P. Hepburn (P-IA): Progressive Hold, 49%
Charles Curtis (P-KS): Progressive Hold, 46%
Edwin T. Morrow (R-KY): Republican Gain, 42%
Murphy J. Foster (D-LA): Democratic Hold, 90%
E.M. Thompson (P-ME): Progressive Gain, 42%
John W. Weeks (R-MA): Republican Hold, 53%
William A. Smith (R-MI): Republican Hold, 42%
Knute Nelson (P-MN): Progressive Gain, 53%
LeRoy Percy (D-MS): Democratic Hold, 81%
Joseph M. Dixon (P-MT): Progressive Gain, 47%
George W. Norris (P-NE): Progressive Gain, 44%
*Samuel Summerfield (P-NV): Progressive Gain, 41%
John H. Bartlett (R-NH): Republican Hold, 46%
Franklin Murphy (P-NJ): Progressive Hold, 48%
Albert B. Fall (P-MN): Progressive Gain, 40%
Furnifold Simmons (D-NC): Democratic Hold, 58%
Robert L. Owen (D-OK): Democratic Hold, 44%
Jonathan Bourne Jr. (P-OR): Progressive Hold, 41%
LeBaron B. Colt (R-RI): Republican Hold, 49%
Benjamin Tillman (D-SC): Democratic Hold, 82%
Thomas Sterling (P-SD): Progressive Gain, 44%
John K. Shields (D-TN): Democratic Hold, 53%
John Morris Sheppard (D-TX): Democratic Hold, 70%
Thomas S. Martin (D-VA): Democratic Hold, 71%
Nathan Goff, Jr. (R-WV): Republican Hold, 53%
Frank W. Mondell (P-WY): Progressive Gain, 47%
*Special Election
**House of Representatives expanded to 435 seats per 1910 census reapportionment.
John H. Bankhead (D-AL): Democratic Hold, 93%
John N. Heiskell (D-AR): Democratic Hold, 69%
Frank Catlin (P-CO): Progressive Gain, 48%
Henry A. Richardson (R-DE): Republican Gain, 48%
Augustus Bacon (D-GA): Democratic Hold, 91%
William E. Borah (P-ID): Progressive Hold, 51%
Frank H. Funk (P-IL): Progressive Gain, 44%
William P. Hepburn (P-IA): Progressive Hold, 49%
Charles Curtis (P-KS): Progressive Hold, 46%
Edwin T. Morrow (R-KY): Republican Gain, 42%
Murphy J. Foster (D-LA): Democratic Hold, 90%
E.M. Thompson (P-ME): Progressive Gain, 42%
John W. Weeks (R-MA): Republican Hold, 53%
William A. Smith (R-MI): Republican Hold, 42%
Knute Nelson (P-MN): Progressive Gain, 53%
LeRoy Percy (D-MS): Democratic Hold, 81%
Joseph M. Dixon (P-MT): Progressive Gain, 47%
George W. Norris (P-NE): Progressive Gain, 44%
*Samuel Summerfield (P-NV): Progressive Gain, 41%
John H. Bartlett (R-NH): Republican Hold, 46%
Franklin Murphy (P-NJ): Progressive Hold, 48%
Albert B. Fall (P-MN): Progressive Gain, 40%
Furnifold Simmons (D-NC): Democratic Hold, 58%
Robert L. Owen (D-OK): Democratic Hold, 44%
Jonathan Bourne Jr. (P-OR): Progressive Hold, 41%
LeBaron B. Colt (R-RI): Republican Hold, 49%
Benjamin Tillman (D-SC): Democratic Hold, 82%
Thomas Sterling (P-SD): Progressive Gain, 44%
John K. Shields (D-TN): Democratic Hold, 53%
John Morris Sheppard (D-TX): Democratic Hold, 70%
Thomas S. Martin (D-VA): Democratic Hold, 71%
Nathan Goff, Jr. (R-WV): Republican Hold, 53%
Frank W. Mondell (P-WY): Progressive Gain, 47%
*Special Election
**House of Representatives expanded to 435 seats per 1910 census reapportionment.
Last edited: