1892 Conventions (The Hearse at Monticello)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:44:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  1892 Conventions (The Hearse at Monticello)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Time for a change... or not.
#1
People's: Vice President James H. Kyle (P-OH)
 
#2
People's: Chief Justice Walter Q. Gresham (P-IN)
 
#3
Democratic: Fmr. Governor Grover Cleveland (D-NY)
 
#4
Democratic: Congressman Adlai E. Stevenson (D-IL)
 
#5
Democratic: Governor Isaac P. Gray (D-IN)
 
#6
Republican: Congressman William McKinley (R-NY)
 
#7
Republican: Fmr. Senator Benjamin Harrison (R-IN)
 
#8
Republican: Mr. Robert T. Lincoln (R-NY)
 
#9
Republican: Populist
 
#10
Prohibition: Congressman John Bidwell (PRO-CA)
 
#11
Prohibition: Chairman Gideon T. Stewart (PRO-OH)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 34

Author Topic: 1892 Conventions (The Hearse at Monticello)  (Read 1115 times)
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 20, 2015, 06:36:27 PM »

Following her historic reelection in the Election of 1888, Elizabeth Cady Stanton would be forced to share house with a hostile Democratic Congress, who viewed her policies and indeed the very idea of a woman in the White House to be an insult to the country's heritage. Heckled by the press and her political opponents, obstructed by Congress at every turn, Stanton nevertheless remained as indomitable as ever. Seeing that legislative progress was impossible, the president and her cabinet changed strategies, determined that "if we could not win the vote, we should at least win the debate". Taking advantage of the fact that any editorial written by the president was virtually guaranteed to be published, Stanton, Secretary of State Susan B. Anthony, and Secretary of War Frederick Douglas set to work "getting the cogs rolling", writing letter after letter to newspapers across American, giving speeches, and rallying the public against the Democratic Congress. This strategy, combined with executive action to protect the rights of black voters in the South and a vigorous whistle stop campaign conducted by Anthony, yielded a convincing victory for the Populists in the 1890 elections.

The last two years of Stanton's presidency would be much more fruitful that her previous time in office. From 1891 to 1892, the Populist Congress passed dozens of new bills, establishing government-owned crop storage facilities to raise the price of grain, allowing for the coinage of silver currency, and various other measures designed to relieve the economic burden on the nation's farmers. In addition, Stanton managed to secure the passage of a (limited) Woman's Rights Act prohibiting discriminatory pay differenced between men and women.

As the 3rd Populist National Convention in Omaha begins, Stanton has made it known that she will not stand for another term in office. With Secretary of State Anthony having likewise declined to run, the delegates are left to choose between Vice President James Kyle and Chief Justice Walter Q. Gresham, both of whom are largely supportive of Stanton's policies (though they are careful not to appear overly supportive of the president herself). The Democrats, meanwhile, are bitterly divided between supporters of former Governor Grover Cleveland, a supporter of the gold standard and defender of the business interests, and Congressman Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois, who argues that the party must adopt traditional Populist policies such as the free coinage of silver in order to become a competitive force in national elections. Governor Isaac Gray, the "Sisyphus of the Wabash", is also being considered by some members of the party, who hope his status as a former Republican will attract votes from the G.O.P.

The Grand Old Party is feeling more old than grand as they prepare to convene for their 12th National Convention. Having suffered to humiliating defeats in a row, the party is devoid of strong leaders and has only a negligible presence in Congress, and the most astute observers are asserting that the party's days are numbered. What little is left of the party establishment - Congressman William McKinley, former Senator Benjamin Harrison, and 1888 Presidential nominee Robert T. Lincoln - has presented itself in hopes of inspiring a rebound of fortunes. There are also those who, noting that both Populist candidates are former Republicans, are urging a fusion with the People's Party, hoping to at least keep Grover Cleveland from taking office.

Finally, the Prohibitionists approach their first seriously contested convention. Both Congressman John Bidwell of California, the party's Congressional leader, and Party Chairman Gideon Stewart have declared their intention to seek the nomination, hoping that the demise of the Republicans will allow them to achieve major party status.

You know the drill. Vote!
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2015, 09:42:09 PM »

Since I'm tired of one party rule, I'm going with

Stevenson (D)

At least for the Convention, but if Cleveland gets nominated again....back to the Populists
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2015, 10:02:05 PM »

Since I'm tired of one party rule, I'm going with

Stevenson (D)

At least for the Convention, but if Cleveland gets nominated again....back to the Populists

We certainly need to work on having two competitive parties. Look at the record so far:

Year:  Winner's Party
1796: Democratic-Republican
1800: Democratic-Republican
1804: Democratic-Republican
1808: Democratic-Republican
1812: Federalist
1816: Democratic-Republican
1820: Democratic-Republican*
1824: Democratic-Republican
1828: Democratic
1832: Democratic
1836: Democratic
1840: Democratic
1844: Liberty
1848: Union (Republican)
1852: Republican
1856: Republican
1860: Republican
1864: Republican
1868: Democratic
1872: Republican
1876: Greenback
1880: Greenback
1884: Populist
1888: Populist

* DeWitt Clinton was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party but ran as an Independent

We've only had two elections where the dominant party was ousted from power, realigning elections (1824, 1844, 1876) not included. I suppose that's what you get when a bunch of internet leftists chart the course of history. Tongue
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2015, 11:20:55 PM »

I'll go with James H. Kyle.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2015, 11:35:56 PM »

Cleveland/John Carlisle
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2015, 11:54:32 PM »

Stevenson/Gray sounds like a decent ticket.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,464
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2015, 01:33:00 AM »

Robert T. Lincoln. 
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2015, 02:11:35 AM »

Stevenson!
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2015, 07:30:11 AM »
« Edited: March 21, 2015, 07:55:15 AM by X »

Stevenson/Gray sounds like a decent ticket.

IIRC, Gray was incredibly racist (even for the time).  Also Kyle was from South Dakota, not Ohio.

Edit: Maybe North and South Dakota could become states early ITTL so that he is eligible to be VP in 1888.  Harry S. Truman's call, obviously.  Sorry to nitpick, this is a great timeline/election series.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2015, 07:36:01 AM »

We've only had two elections where the dominant party was ousted from power, realigning elections (1824, 1844, 1876) not included. I suppose that's what you get when a bunch of internet leftists chart the course of history. Tongue

I think a solution might be to merge Republicans and Democrats. Lincoln+Cleveland votes would have been more than enough to beat Stanton.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2015, 08:16:46 AM »
« Edited: March 21, 2015, 08:30:40 AM by X »

We've only had two elections where the dominant party was ousted from power, realigning elections (1824, 1844, 1876) not included. I suppose that's what you get when a bunch of internet leftists chart the course of history. Tongue

I think a solution might be to merge Republicans and Democrats. Lincoln+Cleveland votes would have been more than enough to beat Stanton.

It seems to vary from TL to TL.  Cath's first series had significant periods of conservative dominence, left vs. far-left conflict, swing elections, and mainstream liberal dominance (a good variety).  The one run by Cath then Dallas then Alfred and I and now Spiral has generally seen more conservative dominance than anything else (albeit with some exceptions).  The one run by Harry S. Truman has (so far) generally been dominated by the left (with some exceptions like the D-R era and the economic conservatism of anti-slavery Northerners like Hale).  

We'll see who (if anyone) is in the driver's seat whenever I finally get around to starting my timeline/election series which will be a little different in the sense that I'm also going to include the full makeup of the Supreme Court in each GE thread meaning the voters' choices will effect who gets appointed, when there are vacancies, and the outcomes of major decisions.  For example, depending on the makeup of the SC at that point in the TL, it'd be entirely possible for Brown vs. Board or Roe vs. Wade to have the opposite outcome of the RL case.  I imagine this would make people sometimes vote with concerns about potential SC vacancies in mind, as is sometimes the case IRL. 

But I digress, I voted merger.  Should've gone with my gut and voted Stevenson Sad
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2015, 09:21:52 AM »

We've only had two elections where the dominant party was ousted from power, realigning elections (1824, 1844, 1876) not included. I suppose that's what you get when a bunch of internet leftists chart the course of history. Tongue

I think a solution might be to merge Republicans and Democrats. Lincoln+Cleveland votes would have been more than enough to beat Stanton.

It seems to vary from TL to TL.  Cath's first series had significant periods of conservative dominence, left vs. far-left conflict, swing elections, and mainstream liberal dominance (a good variety).  The one run by Cath then Dallas then Alfred and I and now Spiral has generally seen more conservative dominance than anything else (albeit with some exceptions).  The one run by Harry S. Truman has (so far) generally been dominated by the left (with some exceptions like the D-R era and the economic conservatism of anti-slavery Northerners like Hale).  

We'll see who (if anyone) is in the driver's seat whenever I finally get around to starting my timeline/election series which will be a little different in the sense that I'm also going to include the full makeup of the Supreme Court in each GE thread meaning the voters' choices will effect who gets appointed, when there are vacancies, and the outcomes of major decisions.  For example, depending on the makeup of the SC at that point in the TL, it'd be entirely possible for Brown vs. Board or Roe vs. Wade to have the opposite outcome of the RL case.  I imagine this would make people sometimes vote with concerns about potential SC vacancies in mind, as is sometimes the case IRL. 

But I digress, I voted merger.  Should've gone with my gut and voted Stevenson Sad

Actually, the record's been fairly liberal as of late with most of the conservative victories only stemming from three-way leftist splits, and even then those victories have been embarrassingly narrow.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2015, 10:11:05 AM »

Keeping Cleveland
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2015, 11:55:46 AM »

Stevenson/Gray sounds like a decent ticket.

IIRC, Gray was incredibly racist (even for the time).  Also Kyle was from South Dakota, not Ohio.

Kyle was an Ohioan until approx. 1885 in original history, then moved to SD to start his political career. The early rise of the Greenbacks in the Midwest made him decide to remain in Ohio ITTL and run for the Senate there instead. As for Gray, he apparently pissed off the Democrats by voting for the Reconstruction Amendments IOTL, so it sounds like he was at least a moderate on racial issues.

We've only had two elections where the dominant party was ousted from power, realigning elections (1824, 1844, 1876) not included. I suppose that's what you get when a bunch of internet leftists chart the course of history. Tongue

I think a solution might be to merge Republicans and Democrats. Lincoln+Cleveland votes would have been more than enough to beat Stanton.

I'm not sure if a full merger is appropriate, since several Republicans are closer to the Populists than they are to the Democrats, plus there are the old Civil War rivalries to consider. If the current trend continues, though, I would expect to see several OTL Republicans emerge as Democrats in the near future. Keep your eyes on New York.

Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2015, 12:01:39 AM »

What a surprise, Cleveland is going to be the Dem nominee. Again.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2015, 12:52:16 PM »

We've only had two elections where the dominant party was ousted from power, realigning elections (1824, 1844, 1876) not included. I suppose that's what you get when a bunch of internet leftists chart the course of history. Tongue

I think a solution might be to merge Republicans and Democrats. Lincoln+Cleveland votes would have been more than enough to beat Stanton.

It seems to vary from TL to TL.  Cath's first series had significant periods of conservative dominence, left vs. far-left conflict, swing elections, and mainstream liberal dominance (a good variety).  The one run by Cath then Dallas then Alfred and I and now Spiral has generally seen more conservative dominance than anything else (albeit with some exceptions).  The one run by Harry S. Truman has (so far) generally been dominated by the left (with some exceptions like the D-R era and the economic conservatism of anti-slavery Northerners like Hale).  

We'll see who (if anyone) is in the driver's seat whenever I finally get around to starting my timeline/election series which will be a little different in the sense that I'm also going to include the full makeup of the Supreme Court in each GE thread meaning the voters' choices will effect who gets appointed, when there are vacancies, and the outcomes of major decisions.  For example, depending on the makeup of the SC at that point in the TL, it'd be entirely possible for Brown vs. Board or Roe vs. Wade to have the opposite outcome of the RL case.  I imagine this would make people sometimes vote with concerns about potential SC vacancies in mind, as is sometimes the case IRL. 

But I digress, I voted merger.  Should've gone with my gut and voted Stevenson Sad

In regards to my timelines: Bottom line, the only reason seemingly conservative candidates won was due to either A) some large, redeeming feature like being anti-slavery or being Sam Houston; B) vote-splitting; and C) general boredom with electing the same party over and over. What it looks like is happening here is that the forum finds a smaller party that is seeming to the left of the dominant one and votes that to replace their former favorite, and so on. The Populists will probably be replaced by the Socialists, who then are replaced by.... Lenin knows what.

I'd like to note that you shouldn't cite Democratic-Republican dominance as a "conservative" era.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2015, 03:51:26 PM »

The effort to fuse the Republican and People's tickets failed by a single vote, while Vice President Kyle continued the long line of Vice Presidents to be nominated to succeed his former chief. Meanwhile, Grover Cleveland is on track to defeat John Marshall for the greatest number of failed presidential bids in a row. The GE will be up in a moment.
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 0.072 seconds with 13 queries.