Talk Elections

Everything else stays the same.

Anyone?

Personally, I think that Rankin will win (due to Wilson's unpopularity and the Recession of 1920), but it will be much closer since many Americans would be unwilling to vote for a woman in 1920.

Whether 1920 was a GOP year or not...epic McAdoo landslide. Not only was Rankin female, but she also had highly unpopular views. Calling her a pacifist is an understatement; in 1941, she was the only member of the House of Representatives to vote against Roosevelt's declaration of war!

No one knew how she would vote on American entry into WWII (or even that WWII would occur) in 1920. Also, Rankin could just flip-flop on her views about WWI after the war was over. Many Democrats did that in regards to their views on the Gulf War, when they initially opposed it but later admitted that they were wrong and that the war was a good idea. I still think Rankin would win, but her win would probably be as close as JFK's was in 1960 or as Bush Jr.'s was in 2000.

Rankin was a very outspoken pacifist, and that can easily be turned into 'unwilling to defend the nation'. Perceptions of women at the time back this up.

Epic McAdoo landslide.

Could you please draw a map, though? BTW, as I previously mentioned, Rankin could say she was wrong and start acting tough on foreign policy. She was not the only person in Congress who voted against American entry into WWI--there were about 50 others. Also, women got the vote nationwide in 1920, which should help Rankin at least to some extent.

It would be really cool if Rankin became President in a TL. Pacifism ftw.

Women had just gotten THE VOTE in 1920, I highly doubt a woman could win the nomination of a major party, not to mention the presidency in 1920.

()

273-258


I'm probably being way too generous to Rankin here, but party loyalty was pretty high in many states. She would have gotten my vote for sure, of course.

Your map seems about right. Maybe give OR (or ID, but not both) to McAdoo. I think that Rankin will win if she runs a good campaign. I think Harding did very well with women in 1920--he probably got 60-65% of the female vote. If Rankin can win 2/3 of the female vote (which she probably could do it identity politics), she will only need about 1/3 of the male vote to win. I think she would be able to do that if she ran a good campaign.

I think the VP choices would also have had some influence on the outcome. Rankin probably would have chosen Coolidge as her running mate as he was a rising star in the party at the time, but I'm not sure who would be the best person for McAdoo's ticket. Possibly John Davis or FDR?

Hoover would have probably been a better VP pick than Coolidge, but I think both would have been decent. James Cox could have been a good VP candidate for McAdoo.

No, Coolidge was better. Coolidge would have held the Northeast for Rankin.

Yes, but Hoover had a much better reputation due to him providing food to millions of Belgians during WWI and preventing massive starvation there. Besides, would McAdoo really have a chance of winning any New England states? I think Harding won all of them in massive landslides. I think that Rankin would have carried the Northeast with both VP choices, while Hoover might have helped more than Coolidge in other areas of the country (especially the West and Midwest).

No. Hoover was associated with Wilson, who was not a popular figure in a country that wanted to return to normalcy.

Then how come many Republicans wanted to draft him in 1920? Hoover wasn't that closely associated with Wilson--he had no impact shaping domestic and foreign policy whatsoever. As far as I can recall, Hoover's main (and only) job during WWI was to provide food to the people of Belgium.

Wilson and the Democrats wanted him drafted to run in 1920.

From what I read, both parties wanted him to run in 1920 because he was considered to be such a non-partisan figure.

Hoover would have lost the Republican base, possibly leaving Rankin with nothing but Vermont.

Like what happened in 1928, when Hoover was presidential nominee? :P

1928 was not 1920, and Rankin is who is at the top of the ticket here.

You're saying that a VP candidate could cost a candidate 270 Electoral Votes?

No, Rankin herself would need to motivate Republican party loyalty if she wanted to earn the 266 electoral votes she needed.

A woman could not win anything close to even 100 EVs.

Women could vote in 1920.

Yeah, but like 5 percent of men would vote for her.

She would lose the male vote for sure, but not that many men were so sexist in every region.

Exactly. I think that Rankin would have won about 65-67% of the women's vote (about the same/a slightly higher percentage than Harding in 1920) and thus would only need about 33-35% of the male vote to win the election. Thus, Rankin would have definitely won much more than 100 EVs in 1920 (possibly even enough EVs to win the election) unless she ran an absolutely horrendous campaign.

She wouldn't 1/3 of the men's vote.

I'm not so sure about that. Wilson was extremely unpopular in 1920, and there was enough support for women's suffrage to put it into the Constitution, so I don't think it was that unpopular among men. I'm pretty sure many men began to value women more highly after seeing their large and valuable contribution to the war effort in WWI. Sure many men were sexist in 1920, but I'm not sure the sexism would have been large enough to cost Rankin the election. Even if Rankin would have lost, it would have been by a small margin unless she ran a horrific campaign and made many mistakes.

Why would you assume men would be so sexist?  

They were at that time.

And you know this how?

Oh, right, you don't.