Retrospective US Presidential Election Results Thread

[Nerdlinger]

It's because I was born and raised in that state, obviously.

You know it's true.

If Illinois's success in the elections here were anything like yours, it'd be a rather poor bellwether.

Some Republicans are wacko (as in GWB) or corrupt (Nixon) or there was better options (GHWB in '92) so it's not at all surprising. And I never voted for a Democrat before 1900 and I would bet you Cogburn has.

I find it somewhat odd that you didn't vote for Cleveland, given that his ideology seems closer to yours than his Republican competitors.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

I find it somewhat odd that you didn't vote for Cleveland, given that his ideology seems closer to yours than his Republican competitors.

Abhakhazia is a conservative, yet he refused to vote Democratic, because he thinks the Dems were always liberal, and the Reps always conservative...

 

[Abhakhazia]

Abhakhazia is a conservative, yet he refused to vote Democratic, because he thinks the Dems were always liberal, and the Reps always conservative...

Incorrect. I actually look at the issues for each election, weigh the balances, and see which person I would rather vote for. If it happens to be a Republican, so what?
And you shouldn't be talking. You voted for James Buchanan, Debs and Cobb. I think Lincoln, Benjamin Harrison and Dole is a bit more consistant than that.

 

[Nerdlinger]

Incorrect. I actually look at the issues for each election, weigh the balances, and see which person I would rather vote for. If it happens to be a Republican, so what?
And you shouldn't be talking. You voted for James Buchanan, Debs and Cobb. I think Lincoln, Benjamin Harrison and Dole is a bit more consistant than that.

Only a bit though. To compare the party of Lincoln with the modern Republican Party is a iffy proposition at best. Even by Harrison's time, and especially by McKinley's time, the GOP was different, much less noble beast than it was at its founding.

And to be fair to Blue, I think she pulled names out of a hat so as to be impartial.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Incorrect. I actually look at the issues for each election, weigh the balances, and see which person I would rather vote for. If it happens to be a Republican, so what?
And you shouldn't be talking. You voted for James Buchanan, Debs and Cobb. I think Lincoln, Benjamin Harrison and Dole is a bit more consistant than that.

Why didn't you vote Cleveland, then? He was the one that most fitted with your views.

And Lincoln was a liberal, Harrison, an anti-trust proto-progressive, and Dole, a conservative.

Compared to Buchanan, a moderator, Debs, a socialist and Cobb, an environmentalist, all three, which leftists would have voted for in those days and ages...

 

[Abhakhazia]

Why didn't you vote Cleveland, then? He was the one that most fitted with your views.

And Lincoln was a liberal, Harrison, an anti-trust proto-progressive, and Dole, a conservative.

Compared to Buchanan, a moderator, Debs, a socialist and Cobb, an environmentalist, all three, which leftists would have voted for in those days and ages...

Lincoln was a liberal "for his time", Harrison believed in protecting veterans, Dole was a conservative.

Sounds like me.

I don't think Debs and Cobb would have voted for Buchanan or any Democrat pre 1920.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Lincoln was a liberal "for his time", Harrison believed in protecting veterans, Dole was a conservative.

Sounds like me.

I don't think Debs and Cobb would have voted for Buchanan or any Democrat pre 1920.

William Jennings Bryan? Debs supported him.

And Cobb's environmentalism was unknown to any Democratic before 1920.

 

[Abhakhazia]

William Jennings Bryan? Debs supported him.

And Cobb's environmentalism was unknown to any Democratic before 1920.

And ran against him?

The defense rests its case.

 

[metastasis_d]

Another fun list: States ranked by how frequently they picked the winner (in my infoboxes, anyway)


While Illinois is the most accurate bellwether (only losing 3 out of 48 elections), New York has the longest active streak, having not lost since 1892.

I think I'll make that into a map after work, and after I finish Turqouise's map.

 

[Nerdlinger]

Why didn't you vote Cleveland, then? He was the one that most fitted with your views.

And Lincoln was a liberal, Harrison, an anti-trust proto-progressive, and Dole, a conservative.

Compared to Buchanan, a moderator, Debs, a socialist and Cobb, an environmentalist, all three, which leftists would have voted for in those days and ages...

Buchanan was a pro-South reactionary. Fremont would have been the choice for liberals/leftists. That's why he won in a landslide here.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Buchanan was a pro-South reactionary. Fremont would have been the choice for liberals/leftists. That's why he won in a landslide here.

Wrong. It was because of Buchanan's reputation here. Not all liberals wanted civil war.
Buchanan won in OTL because the Republicans looked extremist to most Americans.

 

[Abhakhazia]

Wrong. It was because of Buchanan's reputation here. Not all liberals wanted civil war.
Buchanan won in OTL because the Republicans looked extremist to most Americans.

Buchanan won because the Know Nothings split the north. Nobody wanted civil war, either. And Buchanan as a moderator? The Union fell apart under him.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Buchanan won because the Know Nothings split the north. Nobody wanted civil war, either. And Buchanan as a moderator? The Union fell apart under him.

Because Lincoln was elected in 1860!

 

[Abhakhazia]

Because Lincoln was elected in 1860!

But did Buchanan moderate the two side to an agreement in the five months he had to do so? I think not.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

But did Buchanan moderate the two side to an agreement in the five months he had to do so? I think not.

The split was too extreme for him to do so. I'm sure that Fremont would have triggered a civil war, and that he would have made it worse.

 

[Ariosto]

The split was too extreme for him to do so. I'm sure that Fremont would have triggered a civil war, and that he would have made it worse.

In his last address to Congress, he basically said that the Southern States had the right to secede due to the North's noncompliance with such laws as the Fugitive Slave Act. And his solution to the crisis was the Corwin Amendment............but throughout the states.
​

 

[Nerdlinger]

Wrong. It was because of Buchanan's reputation here. Not all liberals wanted civil war.
Buchanan won in OTL because the Republicans looked extremist to most Americans.

Buchanan is widely regarded -- inside and outside AH.com -- as one of, if not, the worst presidents. Without that reputation, the strongly anti-slavery Fremont would still have creamed Buchanan (and Fillmore too) here because even our conservative voters are abolitionist.

 

[d32123]

Buchanan was an incompetent politician, but the groundwork for the Civil War was laid out far before he took office. Many people blame him for the Civil War because they're looking for someone to blame but Lincoln of course is untouchable.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Buchanan was an incompetent politician, but the groundwork for the Civil War was laid out far before he took office. Many people blame him for the Civil War because they're looking for someone to blame but Lincoln of course is untouchable.

True. He might have been incompetent, but he kept the Union together for as long as he could. That is remarkable in itself.

 

[Nerdlinger]

True. He might have been incompetent, but he kept the Union together for as long as he could. That is remarkable in itself.

That bolded part is a rather damning admission. So you could say, "Despite his incompetence, he didn't manage to fuck things up too badly."

Anyway, what's the difference whether the Civil War starts under Fremont or under Lincoln? It was pretty much inevitable, no? Lincoln was a better leader than Fremont, I'll grant.