1896: McKinley vs. Grover Cleveland
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:06:55 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  1896: McKinley vs. Grover Cleveland
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 1896: McKinley vs. Grover Cleveland  (Read 1301 times)
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 27, 2010, 04:57:08 PM »

No third party candidates. Everything else stays the same.



McKinley/Hobart-370 EV
Cleveland/Stevenson-77 EV
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2010, 05:13:00 PM »
« Edited: February 27, 2010, 05:14:35 PM by Lt. Gov and Rep. Libertas »


262-185
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2010, 06:06:05 PM »


Yes.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2010, 06:06:47 PM »


I said everything else would stay the same. There's no way Cleveland wins with 15% unemployment.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2010, 06:09:23 PM »


I said everything else would stay the same. There's no way Cleveland wins with 15% unemployment.

He does according to my map.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2010, 06:10:54 PM »


How come? Cleveland was so unpopular in 1896 in RL that his own party refused to renominate him or even nominate someone with like-minded views. McKinley would easily crush Cleveland.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2010, 06:13:11 PM »


How come? Cleveland was so unpopular in 1896 in RL that his own party refused to renominate him or even nominate someone with like-minded views. McKinley would easily crush Cleveland.

Cleveland refused to run; he wasn't that unpopular.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2010, 06:16:30 PM »


How come? Cleveland was so unpopular in 1896 in RL that his own party refused to renominate him or even nominate someone with like-minded views. McKinley would easily crush Cleveland.

Cleveland refused to run; he wasn't that unpopular.

If he wasn't unpopular, the Dems would have nominated someone who supported the gold standard and not the silver standard. BTW, even though approval rating polls didn't exist back then, it isn't hard to tell that Cleveland would have become unpopular since unemployment was 3% in 1892 and 15% in 1896.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2010, 06:26:17 PM »


How come? Cleveland was so unpopular in 1896 in RL that his own party refused to renominate him or even nominate someone with like-minded views. McKinley would easily crush Cleveland.

Cleveland refused to run; he wasn't that unpopular.

If he wasn't unpopular, the Dems would have nominated someone who supported the gold standard and not the silver standard. BTW, even though approval rating polls didn't exist back then, it isn't hard to tell that Cleveland would have become unpopular since unemployment was 3% in 1892 and 15% in 1896.

Uh, no. The Dems had had internal strife between the two wings for years. When Cleveland refused to run, the Silverites managed to seize control of the party for that year.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2010, 06:47:06 PM »


How come? Cleveland was so unpopular in 1896 in RL that his own party refused to renominate him or even nominate someone with like-minded views. McKinley would easily crush Cleveland.

Cleveland refused to run; he wasn't that unpopular.

If he wasn't unpopular, the Dems would have nominated someone who supported the gold standard and not the silver standard. BTW, even though approval rating polls didn't exist back then, it isn't hard to tell that Cleveland would have become unpopular since unemployment was 3% in 1892 and 15% in 1896.

Uh, no. The Dems had had internal strife between the two wings for years. When Cleveland refused to run, the Silverites managed to seize control of the party for that year.

Still, any President under whom unemployment increases by 12% will lose a lot of his popularity.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2010, 12:56:53 AM »

The whole scenario is illogical.  Had Cleveland or any other Gold Democrat gotten the Democratic nomination in 1896, then the Populists would certainly have run a candidate of their own on a platform of Free Silver.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2010, 01:03:27 AM »

The whole scenario is illogical.  Had Cleveland or any other Gold Democrat gotten the Democratic nomination in 1896, then the Populists would certainly have run a candidate of their own on a platform of Free Silver.

All right. Draw a three-way map then.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2010, 01:17:36 AM »
« Edited: February 28, 2010, 01:19:30 AM by True Federalist »

The whole scenario is illogical.  Had Cleveland or any other Gold Democrat gotten the Democratic nomination in 1896, then the Populists would certainly have run a candidate of their own on a platform of Free Silver.

All right. Draw a three-way map then.



McKinley (R):282
Cleveland (D): 91
Bryan (P): 74
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2010, 01:42:27 AM »

The whole scenario is illogical.  Had Cleveland or any other Gold Democrat gotten the Democratic nomination in 1896, then the Populists would certainly have run a candidate of their own on a platform of Free Silver.

All right. Draw a three-way map then.



McKinley (R):282
Cleveland (D): 91
Bryan (P): 74

I think McKinley would win much more Western states since Cleveland and Bryan will split the vote that Bryan got there in RL and thus McKinley would win in many of them due to the divided Democratic vote. McKinley even won OR, ND, and almost SD when the Democrats were united in 1896 in RL. I agree that McKinley would win, though. Also, I think McKinley would easily win KY since he won it against Bryan in RL and possibly several other Southern states. Finally, how do you make a three way map of 1896 when there are only 2 colors available for that year?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2010, 02:28:06 PM »

I think McKinley would win much more Western states since Cleveland and Bryan will split the vote that Bryan got there in RL and thus McKinley would win in many of them due to the divided Democratic vote. McKinley even won OR, ND, and almost SD when the Democrats were united in 1896 in RL. I agree that McKinley would win, though. Also, I think McKinley would easily win KY since he won it against Bryan in RL and possibly several other Southern states.

The West was fairly solid Free Silver, which was why the Populists did so well there in 1892 despite being a third party with no hopes of actually winning.  With both McKinley and Cleveland running, the gold vote would be split, allowing the Populists to win some Western states that McKinley won in real life.

However, in the South, the Populist's appeal was less about Free Silver and more about providing an alternative to the Bourbon Democrats that the Republicans hadn't.  If the Populists run a candidate of their own, many of McKinley's real life Southern votes would have gone to Bryan.

Finally, how do you make a three way map of 1896 when there are only 2 colors available for that year?

As the map below shows, there are five party colors available each year, but the evcalc page only provides easy access to however many actually had a chance that year.  If you take a look the map url, you'll see that for each state there is a component, of the form:
<postalcode>=<colorcode>;<electoralvotes>;<decile>

<postalcode> is the postal code of the state
<colorcode> 1=red, 2= blue, 3=green, 4=yellow, 5=orange (also 0=gray, but then the decile doesn't matter)
<electoralvotes>  However many electoral votes you want, or even text as I do with Texas below
<decile> Any number from 2 to 9 to indicate the voting strength was from 20 to 90%



However, I did it more simply than that.  I used the 1892 evcalc as it had all three colors I wanted, then changed year=1892 to year=1896 and inserted &UT=3;3;7 in the appropriate place for Utah, altho the order doesn't matter.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 15 queries.