FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
Posts: 27,302
|
 |
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2014, 02:04:53 PM » |
|
I tried to work on a map, but attempts proved pretty useless due to the complexities of how these men's ideologies would play on the modern stage. Here's how I see it, however. Immigrants and most minorities go for Taft due to his actions as president which included a meeting with Booker T. Washington and endorsement of his program, and he vetoed a bill that would have restricted unskilled laborers from entering the U.S. on grounds of a literacy test. Cleveland, on the other hand, sought an extension to the Chinese Exclusion Act and worked to end the Force Act. The New Yorker, however, does do well with Native Americans due to his actions in restricting settlement to lands Arthur opened up as Cleveland believed such was a violation of previous treaties with the Indians.
The fight for economic conservatives is a tough one. While Taft attempted reform and lowered some tariffs, Cleveland was much more committed to both issues and is able to displace Taft there. As well, Taft's support for foreign aid to Latin America helps him with immigrants once again but alienates fiscal conservatives and the anti-intervention types. While labor unions wouldn't like either candidate, Taft seems the obvious choice in light of Cleveland's hard-line ideology and the Pullman Strike. On taxation, Taft is also accused of being a "tax and spend" candidate due to his advocacy of new avenues of raising revenue in his previous term.
On foreign policy, neither is a hawk. However, Cleveland is able to make his anti-interventionist stances much more known to the public than Taft is, and lambastes Taft for "Republican Imperial Wars" such as Iraq. Taft thus becomes associated with the Bush administration and its failures. In this same vein Cleveland also attacks Bush's bailouts, believing them to be corporatist and in violation of free market principle. Taft's surrogates would respond that such a response far exceeded the New Yorker's reaction to the Panic of 1893. Cleveland's anti-war and anti-intervention stances win him support from anti-war activists, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and some prominent members of the Muslim community. Taft is left being associated with the "unpopular center" such as McCain (R) and Schumer (D).
Other issues would include abortion (I'll list Cleveland as pro-life given his opposition to women's suffrage), "Audit the Fed" (Cleveland supports, Taft opposes), the gold standard (Cleveland supports, Taft has said little on the issue), and environmentalism (Taft favors it in a limited sense, Cleveland is apathetic).
Regarding the running-mates, Clinton adds a lot to Cleveland by drawing in mainstream Democrats as well as solidifying him in the South. McKinley adds little due to his place in antiquity as well as covering the same geographic base as Taft. Nevertheless, McKinley's stance as an Ohioan would prove much more important than Taft's residence. While McKinley would often be seen as a better representative of the ticket, he could not undo Taft's presence.
While the issues themselves would leave the candidates on a largely even footing, Cleveland's campaign was much more effective at drawing a wide array of voters, from reform-favoring moderates to "small government" conservatives, libertarians, doves, and so on. Taft, with his lack of electoral or campaign experience, attempted to bring together hawks, labor, moderates, and mainstream members of both parties while meeting Cleveland on his own ground when it came to reform and deficit reduction. Such would ultimately fail, and Grover Cleveland would be elected to his third term in 2016
|
Poll
