Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 17, 2014, 12:36:51 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Election What-ifs?
| | |-+  Alternative Elections (Moderators: Bacon King, Dallasfan65)
| | | |-+  Theodore Roosevelt (P) vs. Millard Fillmore (A) vs. Martin Van Buren (FS)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Theodore Roosevelt (P) vs. Millard Fillmore (A) vs. Martin Van Buren (FS)  (Read 1098 times)
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15112
United States


View Profile
« on: April 07, 2012, 12:48:02 pm »
Ignore

From what I've gathered, there are three former Presidents who, after their presidency was up, decided at one time or another to run on a third party ticket. In 1848, Martin Van Buren ran on the Free Soil ticket. In 1856, Millard Fillmore was the American Party/Know Nothing nominee, and of course in 1912 there's Teddy Roosevelt running as a Progressive. (Of note is the fact that all three of these guys were from New York) If all three of these guys were brought back from the dead and pitted against each other in a general election on their third party tickets, how would they fare? Of course Teddy wins due to name recognition, but who would you vote for and what does the map look like?
Logged

Ray Goldfield
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 905


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2012, 01:04:03 pm »
Ignore

Van Buren's party, while well-intentioned and progressive for the times, would find itself irrelevant today. Fillmore, on the other hand, would find itself a lot of support within the far-right fringe of the Republican party. Roosevelt would consolidate the support of liberals and moderates, as well as play well out west, and easily win the election.

Logged
Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2476
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2012, 11:46:27 pm »
Ignore

I hate it when people say the American Party is far-right.   Yes, that's what the platform said, but it was mostly watered-down thanks to it being co-opted by southern ex-Whigs.  Now, I would've voted for Fillmore or Van Buren, most likely the latter for his libertarian streak: social progressive while still a budget hawk.  However I don't like his answer to Joseph Smith (as a non-Mormon) that "If I were to help you I would lose the vote of Missouri.".   Anyway, Fillmore was a centrist who saved this country from civil war.  I hate the people who stand in the gutters and hurl trash at people who walk in the middle.
Logged

Drink Too Much:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147022.0

An Empire of Stars and Stripes:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156974.0

Quote
FOOL!  I AM Cathcon!

Endorsements:
President: Hillary Clinton
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)

---------------------------------------

Libertarian Internationalist Monarchist
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31604


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2012, 12:42:55 am »
Ignore

If the 13th amendment exists, there's not much point to a Free Soil party and I'd vote Roosevelt. Not a fan of Fillmore.
Logged
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15112
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2012, 01:18:41 pm »
Ignore

If the 13th amendment exists, there's not much point to a Free Soil party and I'd vote Roosevelt. Not a fan of Fillmore.

Well of course the platforms would have to be adjusted to deal with the times. Free Soil would turn more into just a pro-Van Buren party which as Jerseyrules mentioned would take on a libertarian streak. TR would be a hawk on foreign policy, liberal on economic, and most likely moderate on social policies. As for Fillmore, I'd have to look him up, but there'd be an obvious protectionist slant as well as a call for a more middle of the road type of governing on certain large issues.
Logged

Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2476
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2012, 03:55:08 pm »
Ignore

If the 13th amendment exists, there's not much point to a Free Soil party and I'd vote Roosevelt. Not a fan of Fillmore.

Well of course the platforms would have to be adjusted to deal with the times. Free Soil would turn more into just a pro-Van Buren party which as Jerseyrules mentioned would take on a libertarian streak. TR would be a hawk on foreign policy, liberal on economic, and most likely moderate on social policies. As for Fillmore, I'd have to look him up, but there'd be an obvious protectionist slant as well as a call for a more middle of the road type of governing on certain large issues.

Fillmore would be economically protectionist and anti-immigrant in the European sense, wanting strict limits on numbers of legal immigrants, wanting to make English the official language, and much lof my research indicates he was sympathetic to the temperance movement.  While publicly Nixon-esque and Bismarck-esque on foreign policy, he was also very pro-military.  Essentially, he planned many steps ahead and didn't really care what the public thought at the time.  He normalized relations with the Empire of Japan, and was in favor of military and arms buildup.  In my opinion, had he not had to worry about sectional tensions, he could've been a very effective wartime or pre-wartime buildup president, in the McKinley or Chester Arthur mold.
Logged

Drink Too Much:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147022.0

An Empire of Stars and Stripes:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156974.0

Quote
FOOL!  I AM Cathcon!

Endorsements:
President: Hillary Clinton
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)

---------------------------------------

Libertarian Internationalist Monarchist
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines