WI: Grover Cleveland loses the 1892 election

Wendell

Hydrons said:
Grover Cleveland would not be renominated in 1896. After him losing twice to Harrison, Democrats would be too scared to renominate him again. However he would still have a significant role in picking the Democratic nominee for President in that year. One potential contender for the nomination IMO would've been William E. Russell of Massachusetts. Even though he did pass away in 1896, this could potentially be butterflied away. Russell was young and fairly charismatic, and was trusted as a close confidant to Cleveland.
Click to expand...
What about David Hill?
 

kernals12

Banned
This would transform everything.

With the Republicans instead of the Democrats at the controls during the Panic of 1893, we'd get this guy as our President in 1896:
Bryan.gif


The New Deal would arrive 40 years early
 

Wendell

kernals12 said:
That's not how politics works. Whichever party is in control when things go wrong will get blamed by voters.
Click to expand...
We're also talking about n era of deep internal divisions in the main parties and legitimate electoral votes for a minor party. If the Democratic establishment is not tarnished by the Panic of 1893, then they are poised to be the ones controlling the nomination, and they are not aligned to the Populists.
 

kernals12

Banned
Wendell said:
We're also talking about n era of deep internal divisions in the main parties and legitimate electoral votes for a minor party. If the Democratic establishment is not tarnished by the Panic of 1893, then they are poised to be the ones controlling the nomination, and they are not aligned to the Populists.
Click to expand...
Free silver is still going to be a very popular idea and the Democratic establishment is going to get hosed if they don't support it.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Wendell said:
Which sees a three way split in the electorate, and a likely gold Republican elected.
Click to expand...

kernals12 said:
Free silver is still going to be a very popular idea and the Democratic establishment is going to get hosed if they don't support it.
Click to expand...
I think the McKinley tariffs would be blamed , but the Gold Democrat would not, ITTL, and this might shift the whole economic debate to protectionism/free trade. In such case, the GOP would be split. Anyway, I think the Democrats would win since with the panic of 1892, whoever wins in 1892 would likely lose the next. I mean, I can see the GOP as a whole being as popular as Taft in 1912 IOTL and split between pro-tariff conservative and anti-tariff progressive.

If Gold Democrats win 1896, the subsequent economic recovery would end the Gold vs Silver debate within the Democrats for good.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I mean, the 1892 election could potentially lead to an entirely different party realignment, like the 1920 election, but is much less common as a POD in AH.
 

Wendell

Thomas1195 said:
I think the McKinley tariffs would be blamed , but the Gold Democrat would not, ITTL, and this might shift the whole economic debate to protectionism/free trade. In such case, the GOP would be split. Anyway, I think the Democrats would win since with the panic of 1892, whoever wins in 1892 would likely lose the next. I mean, I can see the GOP as a whole being as popular as Taft in 1912 IOTL and split between pro-tariff conservative and anti-tariff progressive.

If Gold Democrats win 1896, the subsequent economic recovery would end the Gold vs Silver debate within the Democrats for good.
Click to expand...

Thomas1195 said:
I mean, the 1892 election could potentially lead to an entirely different party realignment, like the 1920 election, but is much less common as a POD in AH.
Click to expand...

All of this would definitely be in the cards. Perhaps John Palmer gets elected, or William Vilas, who declined nomination in OTL, could well accept under these circumstances.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Wendell said:
Perhaps Harrison's 1892 running mate.
Click to expand...
I feel this option is automatically a non-starter. As a VP, he would be too closely associated to Harrison.

Wendell said:
Although, Levi Morton would be fun. Another option is John Foster.
Click to expand...
It is almost certain that tariffs would become the main scapegoat for the panic of 1892 ITTL.
Not sure about these people's stance on tariffs. Based on Foster's career as a corporate lobbier and Morton's career as a Stalwart, they were most likely protectionists. The GOP would probably need to nominate someone with a trade policy stance of James Blaine, but without Blaine's baggages, to stand a chance in 1896.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top