US-POL-WI: James G. Blaine elected in 1884

[Napoleonrules]

Cleveland had already been President upon his third time running -- I don't see the Dems running a guy who managed to lose to James G. Blaine despite being "incorruptible" again with Blaine being an incumbent.

But the Democratic Party nominated William Jennings Bryan in 1896, 1900, and 1908 and he lost all three times... so... and I said it has not been that rare for a loser to run again. So, perhaps you should research OTL presidential campaigns.

 

[CaliGuy]

But the Democratic Party nominated William Jennings Bryan in 1896, 1900, and 1908 and he lost all three times... so... and I said it has not been that rare for a loser to run again. So, perhaps you should research OTL presidential campaigns.

Bryan didn't nominate himself as an honest alternative to a corrupt McKinley, though.

 

[Stolengood]

But the Democratic Party nominated William Jennings Bryan in 1896, 1900, and 1908 and he lost all three times... so... and I said it has not been that rare for a loser to run again. So, perhaps you should research OTL presidential campaigns.

Where do you think you are? And Bryan was a supremely-beatable candidate, running in absolutely hopeless years -- the Dems essentially used him as a sacrificial lamb to appease the bimetallists. Cleveland was seen as their best shot at the White House since 1860 -- if he blew it, they're not running his ass again, they're going to try and see if somebody else can beat Blaine in four years. The OTL election of 1892 was a unique instance, because Cleveland won the popular vote four years prior but had lost electorally -- that wouldn't be the case here, so the Dems would have no reason to think he's viable without any prior incumbency.

 

[CaliGuy]

Where do you think you are? And Bryan was a supremely-beatable candidate, running in absolutely hopeless years -- the Dems essentially used him as a sacrificial lamb to appease the bimetallists. Cleveland was seen as their best shot at the White House since 1860 -- if he blew it, they're not running his ass again, they're going to try and see if somebody else can beat Blaine in four years. The OTL election of 1892 was a unique instance, because Cleveland won the popular vote four years prior but had lost electorally -- that wouldn't be the case here, so the Dems would have no reason to think he's viable without any prior incumbency.

The popular vote is irrelevant here; else, though, I completely agree with you. Basically, the fact that Cleveland won once (in 1884) probably caused the Dems to think that he can win again in 1892.

 

[David T]

If Cleveland had lost, many Democrats would have blamed Tammany Hall--not without some plausibility:

"There was a great deal of discussion as to what attitude Tammany, after its rebuff at the Democratic convention, would assume toward the ticket. The Tammany leaders appointed a committee to take up the question of endorsing Cleveland and this committee said in its report: "The candidate of the Democratic party having been nominated in the National Convention, following the uniform and unbroken record of our organization, we acquiesce in the will of the majority of the representatives of the party although we believe that will to have been unwisely expressed." The report was adopted, although Grady opposed it and announced his intention of supporting Butler.2 Grady carried out his threat and campaigned for Butler.3 John Kelly and other leaders spoke for Cleveland during the campaign, but they were not at all enthusiastic* On city offices Tammany made no attempt to combine with the other Democratic factions but nominated a straight ticket. The Republicans also nominated a straight ticket, while a citizens' committee nominated a third ticket, which was endorsed by the County Democracy, Irving Hall and the Anti-Monopolists.5 Just before election Tammany sent out circulars lauding its candidates and containing ballots to be cast for city officials, but nothing was said of Cleveland and there were no ballots with the names of his electors.8 In the election Grant, the Tammany candidate for mayor, received 20,000 more votes than Tammany was expected to poll normally, while counting the Republican votes which Cleveland probably received, his vote was 20,000 short of what it should have been. This led to the charge that a deal had been made between Tammany and the Republicans by which Republican votes were cast for Grant in return for Tammany votes for Blaine.1 Tammany accused Irving Hall of having sold out in return for votes for Grace, the fusion nominee." https://books.google.com/books?id=huQkAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA221

The resulting resentment might have made it harder for any Tammany-backed candidate to get the Democratic nomination in 1888.

 

[CaliGuy]

If Cleveland had lost, many Democrats would have blamed Tammany Hall--not without some plausibility:

"There was a great deal of discussion as to what attitude Tammany, after its rebuff at the Democratic convention, would assume toward the ticket. The Tammany leaders appointed a committee to take up the question of endorsing Cleveland and this committee said in its report: "The candidate of the Democratic party having been nominated in the National Convention, following the uniform and unbroken record of our organization, we acquiesce in the will of the majority of the representatives of the party although we believe that will to have been unwisely expressed." The report was adopted, although Grady opposed it and announced his intention of supporting Butler.2 Grady carried out his threat and campaigned for Butler.3 John Kelly and other leaders spoke for Cleveland during the campaign, but they were not at all enthusiastic* On city offices Tammany made no attempt to combine with the other Democratic factions but nominated a straight ticket. The Republicans also nominated a straight ticket, while a citizens' committee nominated a third ticket, which was endorsed by the County Democracy, Irving Hall and the Anti-Monopolists.5 Just before election Tammany sent out circulars lauding its candidates and containing ballots to be cast for city officials, but nothing was said of Cleveland and there were no ballots with the names of his electors.8 In the election Grant, the Tammany candidate for mayor, received 20,000 more votes than Tammany was expected to poll normally, while counting the Republican votes which Cleveland probably received, his vote was 20,000 short of what it should have been. This led to the charge that a deal had been made between Tammany and the Republicans by which Republican votes were cast for Grant in return for Tammany votes for Blaine.1 Tammany accused Irving Hall of having sold out in return for votes for Grace, the fusion nominee." https://books.google.com/books?id=huQkAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA221

The resulting resentment might have made it harder for any Tammany-backed candidate to get the Democratic nomination in 1888.

If Hill doesn't get the nomination, though, who does?