This is all basically true but there is some more stuff to talk about with Palmer and Buckner.
They arn't the best ticket that ever was, both men were Generals in the Late Civil War, on opposing sides and both are clearly heading towards the end of things. Its the oldest Presidential Ticket ever put forth. And yes, they were breakaways with the intent in mind to make their party lose, that said its a rather interesting and powerful ticket based on experience and past actions.
Palmer was the former Union General on the ticket, who preformed admirably throughout the war in the Army of the Ohio/Cumberland, he was respected by Grant, Sherman and Thomas which is all great. Of course so was Winfield Scott Hancock and he was a despicable figure for what he did during Reconstruction and was thus planted firmly on the Pro-Redemption, White Supremacist Wing of the Democratic Party, which is why he was a candidate when he was. Palmer's time in Reconstruction was as the Military Governor of Kentucky (Which technically puts him outside of he bounds of Reconstruction.) and while there, in a state where Civil Government continued to operate he did more then Hancock ever did.
He used his appointed powers, to fight the Proto-Klan, to support Emancipation, Recruit black regiments and fully supported the Freedmen's Bureau. Not surprisingly he was at the time a Republican.
As governor of Illinois a few years later he supported a program which failed in the legislature to provide state aid to widows with children (Which eventually would pass as Aid to Mothers with Dependent Children, which was the first Welfare Program in the country). In the 1870's he was seen as an associate of the Liberal Republicans,
firmly though on the side of actual protection for African Americans and not the Greeley-Davis-Brown view that they should be abandoned and white rule should return to the South. This in turn would lead to his eventual transfer over to being a Democrat. He was first elected under that party banner in 1890. If he were theoretically elected in 1896 he wouldn't see the end of his term though, as he died in 1900.
Simon Bolivar Buckner Sr, was almost as old as Palmer, was from Kentucky and was during the Civil War Pro-actively Confederate during that states Neutrality phase and then led the State Guard he commanded into the Confederate Army and served as a General throughout the war, mostly in the West. After the war, he became a mostly failed Politician, losing at various points two elections for Governor of Kentucky and one for the Senate.
The initial defeats being due to the fact that in the Post Reconstruction South, Buckner was not a proponent of moving against Black Civil Rights, when he was elected Governor of Kentucky it was with a mere plurality due to the impact of the Union Labor and Prohibition Parties.
A Governor he, like Palmer supported Proto-Welfare, as well as aid to farmers and to continue funding the education system in the state (Including equal funding for black schools). His stances also racked up massive levels of Vetos. He also was the governor who had to deal with the fact that "Honest Dick" Tate had robbed the state blind as treasurer and put his foot down on the Hatfield-McCoy and other vigilante fights. He will live to 1912, which means that when Palmer dies, he's definitely going to make it to election day 1900, and Debs' inauguration.
Also worth mentioning the Party platform its a rejection of the populist Democrats (Little P) platform in 1896, and also has a little interesting tidbit:
'This convention was assembled to uphold the principles upon which depends the honor and welfare of the American people in order that Democrats throughout the Union may unite their patriotic efforts to avert disaster from their country and ruin from their party. The Democratic party is pledged to equal justice and exact justice in all men of every creed and condition; to the largest freedom of individual consistent with good government; to the preservation of the Federal Government in its constitutional vigor and support of the maintenance of the public faith and sound money; and it is opposed to paternalism and all class legislation. The declarations of the Chicago Convention attack individual freedom, the right of private contract, the independence of the judiciary, and the authority of the President to enforce Federal laws. They advocate a reckless attempt to increase the price of silver by legislation to the debasement of our monetary standard, and threaten unlimited issues of paper money by Government. They abandon for Republican allies the Democratic cause of tariff reform to court the favor of protectionists to the fiscal heresy. In view of these and other grave departures from Democratic principles, we cannot support the candidates of that convention, nor be bound by its acts. The Democratic party has survived a victory won in behalf of the doctrine and the policy proclaimed in its name at Chicago. The conditions, however, which make possible such utterances from a national convention are a result of class legislation by the Republican party. Is still proclaims, as it has for many years, the power and duty of the Government to raise and maintain prices by law; and it proposes no remedy for existing evils except oppressive and unjust taxation.'
The emphasis I added is an impressive Break, the Party of Slavery and Redemption, campaigned on an idea of equal protection.
This isn't a crazy, reactionary party either, realize that this is the party that the Democratic Roosevelts, Moorfield Storey, Thomas Marshall, Anti-Tammany New York Democrats and Louis Brandeis all supported.
They are, at the very least, a much better ticket to support then McKinley, who was one of the first "Lily-White Republicans", a racist, and of course an Imperialist.
