Talk Elections

It seems that a lot of times when the Election of 1920 is discussed (at least outside of this forum) many people talk about it dismissively like the only notable thing about it was that it was the first election that women had the right to vote.  However, there are a few other things about the 1920 Election that I think a lot of people glance over:

• First, the fact that the Republican Party had a massive landslide vote victory.  I mean that isn't a fact that is normally ignorable, but quite a few people seem to ignore it when talking about 1920, just saying that Harding won the "first election women had the right to vote."
• The referendum on the Wilson Administration.  Now I'm being as objective as possible here, Woodrow Wilson was NOT POPULAR in 1920.  In the grand scale of history he is given extremely high marks because of his role in the League of Nations, World War I, yada yada.  However, when addressing the 1920 Election people yet again typically just say "Harding won in the first election with women voters."
• The growing power of ethnic Americans in the Democratic Party.  Wilson's refusal to help Ireland at the Versailles Conference would piss off the paddies like no other.  Since the Irish controlled the Democratic Party in most urban areas, they sat out the election......in effect disabling the usual "get the vote out" effort usually undertaken by said machines.  As a result Republicans not only were competitive in urban areas, they MOBILIZED ethnic voters (especially German Americans).  Needless to say this lead to massive landslides even in New York, a state infamous for it's Democratic leans for most of American history due to political machines like Tammany Hall that appealed to ethnic Americans.  The 1920 Election is a textbook example of how f***ed a political party can be come Election Day if they piss off the wrong people.

I mean with the preceding points I don't understand why the 1920 Election isn't talked about more in high schools and colleges around the country because of the situations involved in it (you know with the proto-UN League of Nations and the whole machine uninvolvement mentioned before).  Just saying.

Just wondering Mech, have you read 1920: The Year of Six Presidents?

No I haven't, but now that you've suggested it I might.
I've heard the book mentioned quite a few times and people have suggested I read it due to my interest in 1920.  I hear it's a pretty interesting read.

Heard of it. Wilson, TR, FDR, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, right?

I own the book. It's a great read and I'd really recommend it. There are chapters covering the candidates, Wilson's role, the campaign, conventions, third parties, etc. It's very interesting.

Well if you say so.

Nice!  There is a ten dollar Kindle edition available!!!
(one click purchase here we go!!!)

Ugh...Kindles...

I'm reading this book and I have to say it is really enlightening.  For one I understand that Wilson was actually literally insane, thus explaining why he thought that giving many in his own party the finger was a great idea.

And secondly, I've never read a book that makes me despise Wilson.....while having feelings of sympathy for Teddy Roosevelt, as this one has.

No.

1952 takes the cake.

Super popular non-politician wins against an unpopular Democrat in a landslide. How's that underrated?

     People do not realize it today, but Eisenhower almost did not get nominated. He didn't decide that he really wanted it until pretty late in the game. Even then, Taft was quite formidable & had strong connections in the GOP, something that was integral to victory back then.

.


1920 is good though.

1952 is the most monumental election in presidential election in American history.

The first cracks appear in the Solid South, with TX, FL, and VA all going for Eisenhower.  The idea that Republicans could have been competitive in these Confederate states was laughable as recently as the late '40s.

1928 just called. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1928_US_Presidential_Election#Results)

The national Democratic party was is disarray in 1928, and Smith's Catholic religion hurt him immensely in the mainly Baptist South.  1952 represents a profund change in the way that Southerners viewed national politics, while 1928 was just a referendum on the unusually weak Democratic nominee.  The 1952-1968 era in the South was very consequential, as the GOP gains made on Eisenhower's watch largely "stuck".   

I'd call 1789 the most under-rated election ever, but oh well.

Eisenhower was a ridiculously popular non-politician with no real party alignment born in Texas. Wouldn't that do well in the South?