Elections since 1896 when Democrat was more conservative then Republican

[OSR stands with Israel]

1904- Obviously

1992- Clinton campaigned on ending welfare as we know it, cutting government spending

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I don't think there are any others.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Zero, and zero before that.  Sorry.

[ElectionsGuy]

1904 is likely the only reasonable suggestion.

[Sumner 1868]

1904, as both candidates we're conservatives in 1924.

1992- Clinton campaigned on ending welfare as we know it, cutting government spending

Yeah, but he also campaigned on a federal jobs program, environmental legislation, infrastructural projects, repealing the Reagan tax cuts, universal health care, family and sick leave, etc, etc.

[Goldwater]

1904, as both candidates we're conservatives in 1924.

The same is true of 1904.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1904, as both candidates we're conservatives in 1924.

1992- Clinton campaigned on ending welfare as we know it, cutting government spending

Yeah, but he also campaigned on a federal jobs program, environmental legislation, infrastructural projects, repealing the Reagan tax cuts, universal health care, family and sick leave, etc, etc.

And cut capital gains taxes, didnt do healthcare reform

[OSR stands with Israel]

1904, as both candidates we're conservatives in 1924.

The same is true of 1904.

Teddy Roosevelt was a liberal

[Liberalrocks]

1976 Carter/ Ford

While Carter was not more conservative fiscally he faced off against incumbent Ford who was perhaps the last very middle of the road moderate republican to be nominated on a national ticket. On many social issues there was not a huge difference between the two. Carter also is an evangelical and spoke of religion more often and openly then Ford. That difference is hard to visualize today with the current makeup of the GOP being heavily controlled by the far religious right.

[Sumner 1868]

1904, as both candidates we're conservatives in 1924.

The same is true of 1904.

Yes, but Roosevelt is making slight concessions to the progressives, whereas Parker was a Cleveland Gold Democrat. With 1924, neither candidate pretended to be interested in left-wing causes, thus spurning La Follette's third-party campaign.

[Sumner 1868]

1904, as both candidates we're conservatives in 1924.

1992- Clinton campaigned on ending welfare as we know it, cutting government spending

Yeah, but he also campaigned on a federal jobs program, environmental legislation, infrastructural projects, repealing the Reagan tax cuts, universal health care, family and sick leave, etc, etc.

And cut capital gains taxes, didnt do healthcare reform

Yes, he was quite the turncoat in office. But my point stands, because you asked me about the actual presidential campaign.

[SWE]

There were very few substantive differences between Roosevelt and Parker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1904#Campaign

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's just as easy to argue that Parker was to the left of Roosevelt as it is to argue Roosevelt was to the left of Parker.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It wasnt the Dems were more conservative than the GOP, it was the Labour movt started by Bryan-Jennings to offset the spread of Communism and Facism, that brought the Dixiecrat era to close.

1904, 1916 can be argued, moderate Hughes opposing the wartime prez neo con Wilson.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

1932.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Zero, and zero before that.  Sorry.

What?

Stephen Douglas wasn't more conservative than Lincoln?

Seymour wasn't more conservative than Grant?

Do you know ANYTHING about history?

Unless you're making the outrageously revisionist and self-righteous claim that opposing slavery is a strictly liberal position (especially when so many of its earliest opponents were of the most conservative religious denominations such as the Quakers and were almost always more fiscally conservative than its defenders), how was Lincoln more "liberal" than Douglas?  Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that supporting a high tariff was a conservative, pro-business position until about the '40s when the United States had a powerful enough economy on a global scale to benefit from free trade and the GOP of Lincoln's day was clearly more conservative on issues like immigration and prohibition (and morality in general, just like the hated Religious Right of today).  If you're going to make the idiotically simplistic argument that "big government" is always inherently liberal, then I guess Bill Clinton was more conservative than Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush?

I'm going to go ahead and guess you're about 21 and your knowledge of historical politics is limited to the AP Gov. class you took in high school and bias-confirming partisan "historians."

[Rockefeller GOP]

1904, as both candidates we're conservatives in 1924.

The same is true of 1904.

Teddy Roosevelt was a liberal

Teddy Roosevelt was SO clearly the most conservative option in the 1912 election that it's not even funny.  Calling yourself a "progressive" does not mean the same thing in 1912 that it does in 2015...

[Rockefeller GOP]

It's disturbing how many of you want to make history this black and white, easy thing to understand.  The two parties formed for a reason, in opposition to each other.  Yes, of course they've changed and have flipped and flopped on some token issues to gain votes, and they've most certainly been constituted by different coalitions ... but there simply hasn't been a more "fiscally conservative" Democrat than the Republican in any election, and it's stupid to compare by "social issues" like slavery, prohibition, etc. that LITERALLY don't exist anymore.  The GOP formed as a morally intrusive, pro-business party, and the Democrats formed as a fiscally populist "party of the people."  That's remained largely the same.

[SWE]

Zero, and zero before that.  Sorry.

What?

Stephen Douglas wasn't more conservative than Lincoln?

Seymour wasn't more conservative than Grant?

Do you know ANYTHING about history?

Unless you're making the outrageously revisionist and self-righteous claim that opposing slavery is a strictly liberal position (especially when so many of its earliest opponents were of the most conservative religious denominations such as the Quakers and were almost always more fiscally conservative than its defenders), how was Lincoln more "liberal" than Douglas?  Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that supporting a high tariff was a conservative, pro-business position until about the '40s when the United States had a powerful enough economy on a global scale to benefit from free trade and the GOP of Lincoln's day was clearly more conservative on issues like immigration and prohibition (and morality in general, just like the hated Religious Right of today).  If you're going to make the idiotically simplistic argument that "big government" is always inherently liberal, then I guess Bill Clinton was more conservative than Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush?

I'm going to go ahead and guess you're about 21 and your knowledge of historical politics is limited to the AP Gov. class you took in high school and bias-confirming partisan "historians."

That isn't really relevant to whether or not Lincoln is to the left of Douglas, given that Lincoln was not conservative on either issue, regardless of what the majority of his party felt on the issue.

And referring to the early GOP as 'liberal' or 'conservative' is really dumb, given as it was founded as a single-issue anti-slavery party with literally nothing else uniting the party, its members ranged from liberal to conservative to radical to religious fundamentalist to Marxist to nativist to immigrant. It'd be like if the modern day Green, Libertarian, and Constitution parties merged to form a single-issue anti-war party and trying to assign an ideology more coherent than 'anti-war' to that party.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

1904, as both candidates we're conservatives in 1924.

The same is true of 1904.

Teddy Roosevelt was a liberal

Teddy Roosevelt was SO clearly the most conservative option in the 1912 election that it's not even funny.  Calling yourself a "progressive" does not mean the same thing in 1912 that it does in 2015...

So clearly?  Wait, really?

[OSR stands with Israel]

1904, as both candidates we're conservatives in 1924.

The same is true of 1904.

Teddy Roosevelt was a liberal

Teddy Roosevelt was SO clearly the most conservative option in the 1912 election that it's not even funny.  Calling yourself a "progressive" does not mean the same thing in 1912 that it does in 2015...

Robert Taft was more conservative.

In 1912 most liberal to least

1. Woodrow Wilson
2. Teddy Roosevelt
3. Robert Taft

[NerdyBohemian]

The idea that the parties "switched places" is one of the most irksome ideas to me. The reality is much more complicated and you need to know the historical contexts of the eras in question. I think this simplistic idea comes from the guilt modern Democrats feel knowing that our party once had a large faction dedicated to preserving slavery and objecting to civil rights.

Sincerely,

A high school history teacher.

[NerdyBohemian]

1904, as both candidates we're conservatives in 1924.

The same is true of 1904.

Teddy Roosevelt was a liberal

Teddy Roosevelt was SO clearly the most conservative option in the 1912 election that it's not even funny.  Calling yourself a "progressive" does not mean the same thing in 1912 that it does in 2015...

Robert Taft was more conservative.

In 1912 most liberal to least

1. Woodrow Wilson
2. Teddy Roosevelt
3. Robert Taft

President Taft broke up more monopolies than Roosevelt who took a middle of the road "some trusts are good for business and government , some are bad" approach. Roosevelt even criticized Taft for the amount of trusts he went after. Taft also worked to pass the 16th amendment.

[Mechaman]

Zero, and zero before that.  Sorry.

What?

Stephen Douglas wasn't more conservative than Lincoln?

Seymour wasn't more conservative than Grant?

Do you know ANYTHING about history?

Unless you're making the outrageously revisionist and self-righteous claim that opposing slavery is a strictly liberal position (especially when so many of its earliest opponents were of the most conservative religious denominations such as the Quakers and were almost always more fiscally conservative than its defenders), how was Lincoln more "liberal" than Douglas?  Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that supporting a high tariff was a conservative, pro-business position until about the '40s when the United States had a powerful enough economy on a global scale to benefit from free trade and the GOP of Lincoln's day was clearly more conservative on issues like immigration and prohibition (and morality in general, just like the hated Religious Right of today).  If you're going to make the idiotically simplistic argument that "big government" is always inherently liberal, then I guess Bill Clinton was more conservative than Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush?

I'm going to go ahead and guess you're about 21 and your knowledge of historical politics is limited to the AP Gov. class you took in high school and bias-confirming partisan "historians."

That isn't really relevant to whether or not Lincoln is to the left of Douglas, given that Lincoln was not conservative on either issue, regardless of what the majority of his party felt on the issue.

And referring to the early GOP as 'liberal' or 'conservative' is really dumb, given as it was founded as a single-issue anti-slavery party with literally nothing else uniting the party, its members ranged from liberal to conservative to radical to religious fundamentalist to Marxist to nativist to immigrant. It'd be like if the modern day Green, Libertarian, and Constitution parties merged to form a single-issue anti-war party and trying to assign an ideology more coherent than 'anti-war' to that party.

Yeah mostly this.

ROcky, I mostly agree with you on historical analysis, but really the early GOP coalition was so all over the map that trying to pin down Lincoln and Grant as on the whole "conservative" just doesn't work.  It would only be by Post-Reconstruction when a lot of the "liberal" and even some "radical" Republicans were forced out of the coalition that the conservative vs. liberal divide began to take shape between the two parties.

[Mechaman]

The idea that the parties "switched places" is one of the most irksome ideas to me. The reality is much more complicated and you need to know the historical contexts of the eras in question. I think this simplistic idea comes from the guilt modern Democrats feel knowing that our party once had a large faction dedicated to preserving slavery and objecting to civil rights.

Sincerely,

A high school history teacher.

You and me both NerdyBohemian.

The ignorance particularly on labor and economic issues is quite telling.  The assumption seems to be that because Cleveland was a "Bourbon Democrat" which historians generally call a "conservative" that the party as a whole was very conservative and the Republicans were liberals and left wingers.  What generally gets missed is that Cleveland was a Democrat elected in an era of Republican dominance in the White House and was able to get as much success as he did because he had a wide appeal to *shocker* Republican voters who were both pro-gold and in favor of reform politics.  He was Bill Clinton, not Ronald Reagan.

Compare and contrast that with the agrarian radicals, silverite westerners, labor radicals, Georgists, Fenian Nationalists, and other assorted very liberal elements of the Democratic coalition.  No way in flip you could describe a lot of these people as "conservative", particularly for the times.

Teddy Roosevelt seems like a "liberal" until you actually read up on the times and what the opposition was selling by that point.  As it is, even Alton Parker was arguing in favor of an eight hour work day.

Relevant article:

http://www.city-journal.org/story.php?id=1464

Roosevelt seems very liberal until you consider that his rhetoric about cooperation between business and labor in 1904 was being pushed for by "old fashioned Jackson Democrats" in the 1880s.  Also, even Thomas Jefferson supported anti-monopoly legislation.  So yeah, I guess supporting something a Democratic Republican supported in 1797 suddenly makes him an amazing liberal Republican.. . .  .  sheesh.

[Mechaman]

There were very few substantive differences between Roosevelt and Parker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1904#Campaign

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's just as easy to argue that Parker was to the left of Roosevelt as it is to argue Roosevelt was to the left of Parker.

Mostly this.

You really have to consider where the Democratic Party as a whole was at the time before blanketly assuming Parker was to Roosevelt's right.  By 1904 Roosevelt was at best saying that labor and capital needed to do a better job of working with each other, something (as I pointed out earlier in this thread) "conservative" Democrats had been saying for decades.  And that is before I address the man's paternalistic nationalism, which was obviously a very conservative driven mentality.  Further, as much as everyone wants to use the put down of the Pullman Strike as some evidence that Cleveland was to the far right of his Republican opponents, some context is very freaking necessary.  For instance, in the 1892 Election Cleveland was helped in the Midwest (of all places) largely due to labor unrest at the suppressive actions taken against unions during Harrison's presidency (this really helped the Democrats sell their free trade agenda, given that protectionist policies did not yield benefits for many workers at the time).

And further, his actions in regards to Pullman weren't unpopular among Republicans.  Even Samuel Gompers approved of Cleveland's handling of the Pullman Strike.  Cleveland's handling of the strike was defended as a just response against union strikes until 1935 and even Ted Roosevelt claimed Cleveland as an influence when deciding how to deal with the Antracite Coal strikers.  What actually damaged Cleveland in regards to the strike was the impact it had on his own party's voting base (particularly in the South and the West where Populist sentiments were particularly high), many whom sat out the 1894 House elections (thus leading to a huge landslide in favor of the Republicans).  Few of these voters saw the GOP (save for maybe William Borah and Robert M. Lafollette and a few other prairie populists) as a better alternative.  And really the one really big contention that Gilded Age Republicans had with Bourbon Democrats was over trade (Republicans were huge protectionists and the Bourbons, like other Democrats, were largely in favor of freer trade), which William McKinley made a huge stink of over when he ran for president in 1896.  He also had the foresight to abandon moralistic issues (ie, Prohibition and immigration restrictions) and adopt *shocker again* conciliatory language with "respectable" unions like the Knights of Labor in order to win a landslide mandate in the Northern states against Bryan's perceived silverite radicalism.  Basically, McKinley became an imperialist protectionist version of Cleveland and his successor Teddy Roosevelt was able to adopt a much more successful and opportunistic version of it.

So yeah, history books.  Read 'em.