WI: Richard Bland got the Democratic Nomination in 1896

What happens if Richard Bland got the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 1896 instead of William Bryan?

Bland would have lost, probably worse than Bryan. He was a silverite, and to their opponents (who dominated the Northeast) all silverites were enemies of civilization. Moreover, Bland, elderly and married to a Catholic, probably would not have engendered the enthusiasm among evangelicals that Bryan did. He certainly wouldn't have campaigned as vigorously (though of course it is true that Bryan's vigorous campaign helped galvanize his opponents as well as his supporters). No silverite could have won in states like New York or Connecticut or New Jersey, which had been closely contested in the Gilded Age, so he would have to make up for it by winning Ohio and Indiana; unfortunately for the Democrats, the Ohioan McKinley was the strongest possible Republican candidate for those states.

In emphasizing the problems any silverite would face, I do not mean to suggest that a Cleveland Democrat would have done better. Quite the contrary; the depression had made Cleveland so unpopular, that in the unlikely event the Democrats nominated a Gold Democrat, they would have lost in a landslide (with many of their followers deserting them for the Populists).
 
Bland would either die on the campaign trail, or soon afterward like Horace Greeley did during the Electoral Vote count. This might be good or bad for Bryan. Good because he gets his start in politics a little bit later and has more time to mature and perfect his art, as well as not become old news to the Democrats. Bad because 1896 was the perfect year for him, and Bland might discredit Silverism and Populism for the Democrats. Bland is going to lose, for the reason's David T put above, but this would have a profound inpact on Bryan and the Democratic Party's evolution.
 
Top