They aren't saying that the Progressives will run 3rd party, they're saying that a Republican ticket without a 3rd party progressive run would've lost to the Democrat's in 1912 because there is no candidate the GOP could put forth that would unify both the Progressives and the Party's old guard. That split, which existed before Teddy and Taft's row and which existed after it, was the reason why Teddy could make a 3rd Party run, it a symptom of the Republican divide, not the cause. To quote David T
I find David T an extremely overrated person for info on this board. His first arguement flies in the face of midterms meaning the doom of an incumbent party even back then. Examples : 1894, Democrats lost 110 Seats but in the 1896 Presidential Election, came close to winning a second term in both the NPV (4.3% loss for an Incumbent Party) and EVs (48 EVs needed for Bryan to win, which would've meant flipping Kentucky (13 EVs that McKinley won by 277 votes), California (9 EVs that McKinley won by 1,922 votes), Oregon (4 EVs that McKinley won by 2,040 votes), Indiana (15 EVs McKinley won by 18,181 votes), and Ohio (McKinley's Home State where his popularity was questionable, he won the 23 EVs there by 48,784 votes).) In 1898, Democrats won 37 seats and yet McKinley landslided into re-election in 1900. In 1902, the Democrats won 26 seats while the Republicans won 6 seats, with both parties obviously tearing up the remnants of the Populists for their margins yet Teddy won in a landslide in 1904. In 1906, the Democrats won 32 House Seats but look what happened 2 years later : Taft wins in a landslide and that was despite the panic that occurred in 1907. In 1910, the Democrats won 55 seats, which is a 23 seat overperfomance from 1906 and even then, had the Republicans stayed united, which they would here because they had no reason to bolt without TR basically making the Bull Moose Party from thin air, the Republicans likely could've scraped by a win in the NPV and Electoral Vote. Would they grumble about Hughes being the Nominee? Probably, but Beveridge being on the ticket and promises of Senators like Borah, Cummins, Norris, Poindexter, and the like being in his cabinet is better to them then being in the dark due to a Democrat being in the oval office. Johnson, La Follette, White, and their ilk are likely to recognize this and would encourage progressives to vote Hughes over Wilson.
I don't know why people find David T as a genuinely good source of info considering, at in my likely disgustingly humble opinion, his arguments boil down to "
Wall of text followed by a statement that seems to hold up until you look at it with more scrutiny which is hard because it's essentially a lot of text that takes forever to read." When the guy says that a Conservative 1920s ruled by the Democrats that has the GD happen would mean the South becomes even more Republican somehow because of what one guy said in a newspaper article regarding the OTL 1924 election when the choices was the Southerner Davis (who the South would vote for because of regional pride), the Conservative Yankee Cooldie, and the borderline socialist Yankee La Follette. Gee, I wonder who a white southern conservative democrat would support in such a race. (I read the post somewhere, I just don't remember where).
Now, tearing apart his arguments piecemeal.
1) the 1892 election that Harrison came close to winning due to 8 states that were under 3.5% and likely lost due to Weaver splitting the vote (I'm of the opinion that at least in 1892, the Populists took more from Harrison than Cleveland) and as I stated above, Midterms =/= Presidential Election futures. If that was the case, Buchanan, Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Blaine, 22nd President Cleveland, Bryan, Teddy, Taft in 1908, Wilson in 1916 (Dems lost 61 seats in 1914), Coolidge, FDR, Truman, Ike, Nixon 1960, President Nixon in 1970, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Obama, and Trump didn't have a snowball's chance of winning because of how the midterms went for their party. Yet every one of these guys either won the Presidency, won re-election, or lost it by a hair in several states. Presidential Elections aren't the result of midterms. They're the result of what happens in the Presidential Election itself.
2) there's a major reasoning as to why the 1911 losses happened when they did. A little something called the 1910-1911 panic. Of course the Republics would lose big in that year because it was a economic panic year. No party can survive those and Taft was lucky he was running a two time failure like Bryan and the Dems had no all stars while Teddy backed him for President as well as George B. Cortelyou ending the 1907 panic. If not for those factors, he likely would've lost if he ran at all. Fairbanks or Root would've easily lost to Bryan who could paint them as Wall Street conservatives and they were the favorites if Taft didn't run while I don't see Cortelyou running, even if Teddy wanted him too.
3) In KS 1912, Capper's other opponent was Socialist George W. Kleihege who took 6.89% of the vote and 1912 was the Socialist Party's best performance, with Debs outpacing Taft in two states. In KS, Debs won 7.33%, which likely bolstered Kleihege's numbers up a lot. The 1912 Maine Gubernatorial Election did not take place on the day of the election but a little under two months before it (which I noticed he curiously left out), which would hurt anyone and the Socialist and Prohibition votes combined consumed about 2.33% of the vote in that election. Then in Nebraska, the Socialists and the Prohibition Parties got a combined 5.41% of the vote in that state and the People's Independent candidate Richard Lee Metcalfe, who had ran in the Democratic Primary against Morehead, who himself in the the PI Primary, dropped out and endorsed Morehead for Governor. Also, Debs won 1.96% in Maine and 4.08% in Nebraska. These third parties likely had a huge impact on the outcome on those gubernatorial elections. It is interesting to note that Aldrich was endorsed by the Progressive Party as well, which flies in the face of the idea that there was no candidate that could unite both wings, at least at the state level.
4 & 5) Taft is not running in this scenario due to being dead. Agreed, he had no shot at winning but notice that none of it said that the GOP didn't have any chance of winning, only Taft. The incumbent President unpopular or not isn't running here due to his age. Like I said, Progressive Republicans would grumble at Hughes being the Nominee but having positions like Navy Sec, State Sec, Treasury, Commerce, Agriculture, AG, etc, etc, and the VP position to use as a springboard for a Presidential bid in 1920 after a single Hughes term and defeat in 1916 or two terms of Hughes would be a greater boone than not seeing anything or having any post due to President Wilson/Clark.
Apologies if I seem hostile here, I'm just tired of seeing David T be posted everywhere and not being challenged like he should be. The guy makes good points at time, but then makes blunders and also leaves out and forgets to include specific information. Just wanted to challenge him for once.
Anyway, since it seems we're at an impasse, agree to disagree?
