He would have voted for Polk in 1844 (he kicked Mexico's ass!) and Roosevelt in 1932 (he said he would balance the budget!)... but also would have voted for Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party in 1912, which wanted to vastly expand federal power.
Actually, it's odd that he would vote so consistently for Whigs and Republicans in the 19th century, in light of their protectionism and "Big Government" views. His support for Wallace is even stranger.
This guy's hypothetical voting history makes no sense at all, unless he's one of those right-wingers who incorrectly associate Whigs and early Republicans with present-day "conservatism." But that still doesn't explain his Bull Moose support or his Wallace vote.
Yeah, he needs to explain himself.
I chose as I would if I lived in that era, and according to the politics of the day, not according to my present views. For example, in 1844 I would have voted for Clay if not for his opposition over the annexation of Texas, and Roosevelt in 1932 because I would have felt betrayed by Hoover who had promised the end of poverty during his term. Throughout time from the 1790’s-1932 I would have wanted expanded government, and more liberal policies, more interventionism, etc. However, by 1932 that would become the opposite (except for internationalism), and having controlled government growth. The 1968 vote partially falls into this category, though a lot of it has to do with the issue of Civil Rights. While I do support the institution in principle, in practice it does the same thing it is supposed to prevent, bringing ethnicity back into the basis of whether you get a job or position. That and he promised to win in Vietnam, something that Nixon, while he promised an “honorable victory”, never really mentioned.
