If Blaine wins in 1884, what does the 1888 election look like?

SpaceCowboy

Banned
If James G. Blaine wins the US Presidency in 1884, what does the 1888 election look like?

Does Blaine run for reelection and get renominated?

Who do the Democrats nominate in 1888? Grover Cleveland again or some new face such as Arthur Pue Gorman?

Does Blaine win reelection in 1888 in this TL?

Also, who's going to be Blaine's VP in 1888 in this TL? After all, his 1884 VP--John Logan--died in 1888.

Thoughts?
 
Gorman or Hill in '88 loses. Maybe Thurman gets the Democratic nod instead? Blaine has reasonable odds at reelection.
 

SpaceCowboy

Banned
Gorman or Hill in '88 loses.

You mean the Dem nom or the general election?

Maybe Thurman gets the Democratic nod instead?

Possible, though he is very old (75) by this point in time.

Blaine has reasonable odds at reelection.

Would he actually run, though?

Also, please note that Blaine died in January 1893 in our TL. In this TL, his death might occur even sooner due to the stress of being President. In any case, though, Blaine's VP would get to become President in this TL--at least for a little bit--even if the Dems will win in 1892.
 
You mean the Dem nom or the general election?
The latter.


Possible, though he is very old (75) by this point in time
.
True, but someone needs to get the western farmers on board.


Would he actually run, though?

Also, please note that Blaine died in January 1893 in our TL. In this TL, his death might occur even sooner due to the stress of being President. In any case, though, Blaine's VP would get to become President in this TL--at least for a little bit--even if the Dems will win in 1892.
Very fair points. Who was his running mate anyway? John Logan?
 

SpaceCowboy

Banned
Republican era.

I wouldn't call an era where the popular vote was generally either very close or--as in 1876--pro-Democratic to be a Republican era, though.

Divided opposition.

No more than the GOP was in 1880 in our TL, and yet they still won.

Blaine was also reasonably competent and well-read.

This would only barely save his skin in 1884 in this TL, though.


OK.

Thought so.

OK.
 
I wouldn't call an era where the popular vote was generally either very close or--as in 1876--pro-Democratic to be a Republican era, though.

The only Democrat elected between James Buchanan and Woodrow Wilson was Cleveland, who may have had one election stolen from him, but likely benefited from swindling of the next one.

No more than the GOP was in 1880 in our TL, and yet they still won.
Different types of divisions. Pro-poils and anti-spoils transcended monetary policy divides.


This would only barely save his skin in 1884 in this TL, though.
Perhaps.
 

SpaceCowboy

Banned
The only Democrat elected between James Buchanan and Woodrow Wilson was Cleveland, who may have had one election stolen from him, but likely benefited from swindling of the next one.

You're conflating the 1896-1932 era with the 1876-1892 one, though. The latter was a period of Republican dominance whereas the former was much more evenly balanced. The 1876 election, 1880 election, and 1888 election were all close in spite of them all being GOP wins (though with Dems winning the popular vote in 1876 and 1888 and only very narrowly losing it in 1880).

Different types of divisions. Pro-poils and anti-spoils transcended monetary policy divides.

Was the money issue already a large one by 1888, though?


Yep.

In spite of Blaine's credentials, he only managed to achieve a virtual tie with Cleveland in 1884--something that won't change in this TL (though, in this TL, Blaine is going to be slightly above the winning line rather than slightly below it).
 
You're conflating the 1896-1932 era with the 1876-1892 one, though. The latter was a period of Republican dominance whereas the former was much more evenly balanced. The 1876 election, 1880 election, and 1888 election were all close in spite of them all being GOP wins (though with Dems winning the popular vote in 1876 and 1888 and only very narrowly losing it in 1880).
Three close elections just as much the failing of the other party though too, and civil war allegiances still very much mattered. Also, James Weaver and the Populists and their Greenback Party precursors helped to divide the electorate.


Was the money issue already a large one by 1888, though?
Yes. It was a controversy escalating since the civil war.


In spite of Blaine's credentials, he only managed to achieve a virtual tie with Cleveland in 1884--something that won't change in this TL (though, in this TL, Blaine is going to be slightly above the winning line rather than slightly below it).
Sounds oddly familiar in the U.S. of 2018.
 

SpaceCowboy

Banned
Three close elections just as much the failing of the other party though too,

Are you suggesting that the Republicans' failing were what caused these close elections?

and civil war allegiances still very much mattered.

The Dems managed to win the upper South and immigrant voters in the North in spite of these areas and voters being pro-Union during the Civil War, though.

Also, James Weaver and the Populists and their Greenback Party precursors helped to divide the electorate.

Weaver's main strength was in 1892, though. Before 1892, he and the Greenbacks don't appear to have had much power or influence.

Yes. It was a controversy escalating since the civil war.

Why'd it spiral out of control in the early 1890s, though? I mean, even before the Panic of 1893, it appears to have become a larger and larger issue.

Sounds oddly familiar in the U.S. of 2018.

Yeah.[/quote]
 
Are you suggesting that the Republicans' failing were what caused these close elections?
It's a contributing factor.


The Dems managed to win the upper South and immigrant voters in the North in spite of these areas and voters being pro-Union during the Civil War, though.
Outside of pockets of the Upper South, the region was strongly Democratic before, during, and after this era. AS for immigrants, those allegiances were less than clear regarding the U.S. versus C.S., especially when it came to conscription. Also, before, during, and after this era, down to the present day, Democrats have enjoyed greater support among urban immigrants.


]Weaver's main strength was in 1892, though. Before 1892, he and the Greenbacks don't appear to have had much power or influence.
That's like saying Perot had no influence in 1992. Influence can be achieved without winning states by denying them to someone potentially likely to have otherwise won them.


]Why'd it spiral out of control in the early 1890s, though? I mean, even before the Panic of 1893, it appears to have become a larger and larger issue.

Silver and fiat currency were more accessible to poorer populations. Once the country ceased the first time to be wedded to the gold standard, the floodgates were open to alternatives which in that era were doomed to failure.
 
Top