Multiple Presidential Candidates for US parties

[Uhura's Mazda]

Looking at the 1836 election, it seems that the Whigs had three presidential candidates in different states in a attempt to deny a majority to van Buren. This almost worked, so why didn't any one else try it in more modern times? Let's say, in 2012, the GOP could have nominated Romney or someone really centrist for the Northern states and some right-wing nut-job like Ron Paul in the Deep South. *Theoretically* more Democrats would go for the 'nice' Republican in majority-Democrat states and the Republican hold on the South would be more entrenched, giving them more seats on the Electoral College and hopefully (actually I'm a socialist, but for argument's sake...) deny Obama/whoever an absolute majority. Then, the vote would be given to the House of Reps, which I believe was controlled by the Republicans at the time.

So 1) Would this ever have been remotely feasible? and 2) What would be the result of, say, the 2012 election? (or any one you like, really)

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

After the advent of TV and even radio it was too hard to do - in fact, I would argue the Republicans did something like this, though unintentionally, in 1912 with the very Progressive Teddy Roosevelt and conservative Taft. And the Democrats in 1948, though they were the incumbents.

You'd hve to have an incredible deadlock. One time where it might have been tried is 1924. The Democrats went 103 ballots and I imagine they figured with the death of a popular president at that time and the economy doing well they had little chance. Which is probably why they didn't try.

So, to answer the 2nd part of your challenge, let's figure Davis is seriously injured and - while he recovers - around the 95th ballot it's realized he can't even run. So, the Democrats select a few people.

The Southerner probably wins the South rather easily, but I don't think the others can beat Coolidge's popularity. I think there would be a closer win for Coolidge, but you'd also have a smarter electorate saying, "Wait, if I vote for my guy he probably won't become President anyway." Al Smith, for instance, could be run in the cities, but how many people in the North will say, "Wait, even if I vote for him, what are the chances he can even win?" (Though Smith, being Catholic, could find this a good way to run and not have to worry about the South.)

 

[David T]

There does not seem to have been any deliberate Whig strategy in 1836 to throw the election into the House, and even if they had one, it would have been suicidal for them to mention it openly because that would just bring up memories of the alleged Adams-Clay "Corrupt Bargain" of 1824. According to Michael F. Holt in *The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party* the Whigs were much more hopeful that running different presidential candidates in different states would help their state and local tickets than that they could take the presidential election into the House. In any event, they had little choice but to run various presidential candidates because there really was no national Whig Party as of 1836. As Holt writes,

"To call all who opposed the Jackson administration before 1836 'Whigs' or to speak of a 'Whig party' in the mid-1830s is more a literary convenience than an accurate description of fact. Although the opponents of Jackson could cooperate in Congress and although they cheered on each other's efforts in different states, they had developed no central organization. More important, they had not yet formed any institutional loyalties to the new Whig party. Indeed, many foes of Jackson and Van Buren who would later adopt the name 'Whig,' like the Antimasons in Vermont and Pennsylvania or State Rights men in certain southern states, still eschewed that label in the mid-1830s. It is no wonder that so polyglot and embryonic a coalition failed to hold a national convention in 1835 or 1836." (p. 39) http://books.google.com/books?id=5aGyVFn3VnMC&pg=PA39

It should be noted that (1) even if the race had gone into the House, Van Buren would still have won (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24th_United_States_Congress for a breakdown of the state delegations) and (2) in any event, running different candidates in different states--which, I repeat, was a matter of necessity, not "strategy" for the Whigs in 1836--had disadvantages as well as advantages. For example, Hugh White's opponents in the South warned that if he carried a number of southern states, this would just throw the election into the House where a northern Whig with "abolitionist" sympathies might be elected.

In short, it is just not something that is viable as a strategy. When most voters go to the polls, they want to vote for someone who will actually be elected, not somoene who will merely throw the race into the House with uncertain results.