Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Forum Historical Election Poll #10

Forum Historical Election Poll #10  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you vote for if transported back to the 1896 election?

    • Rep: William McKinley & Garret Hobart
    • Dem: William Jennings Bryan & Arthur Sewell
    • National Dem: John M. Palmer & Simon Boliver Buckner
      0
    • Prohibition: Joshua Levering & Hale Johnson
      0
    • Socialist Labor: Charles Matchett & Matthew Maguire
  2. 2. Who would you vote for if transported back to the 1900 election?

    • Rep: William McKinley & Theodore Roosevelt
    • Dem: William Jennings Bryan & Adlai E. Stevenson I
    • Prohibition: John Woolley & Henry Metcalfe
      0
    • Social Democrat: Eugene V. Debs & Job Harriman
    • Populist: Wharton Barker & Ignatius Donnelly
      0
    • Socialist Labor: Joseph Maloney & Valentine Remmel
      0
  3. 3. Who would you vote for if transported back to the 1904 election?

    • Rep. Theodore Roosevelt & Charles W. Fairbanks
    • Dem: Alton B. Parker & Henry G. Davis
    • Socialist: Eugene V. Debs & Benjamin Hanford
    • Prohibition: Silas Swallow & George Carroll
    • Populist: Thomas Watson & Thomas Tibbles
      0


Recommended Posts

Re-Election Forum Presidential History: Presidents and VPs

1a.  George Washington & John Adams, 1789-1793

1b.  George Washington & John Adams 1793-1797

2a.  Thomas Jefferson & John Adams 1797-1801

2b. Thomas Jefferson & John Adams 1801-1805

2c. Thomas Jefferson & George Clinton 1805-1809

3a. James Madison & George Clinton 1809-1813

3b. James Madison & Elbridge Gerry 1813-1817

4a. James Monroe & Daniel D. Tompkins 1817-1821

5a. John Quincy Adams & Richard Rush 1821-1825

6a. Henry Clay & Nathan Sanford 1825-1829

7a. John Quincy Adams & Richard Rush 1829-1833

8a. Henry Clay & John Sergeant 1833-1837

9a. Daniel Webster & Francis Granger 1837-1841

10a. James Birney & Thomas Earle 1841-1845

10b. James Birney & Thomas Morris 1845-1849

11a. Gerrit Smith & Charles Foote 1849-1853

12a. Winfield Scott & William A. Graham 1853-1857

13a. John C. Fremont & William L. Dayton 1857-1861

14a. Abraham Lincoln & Hannibal Hamlin 1861-1865

14b. Abraham Lincoln & Andrew Johnson 1865

15a. Andrew Johnson *takes presidency on Lincoln's assassination* 1865-1869

16a. Ulysses S. Grant & Schuyler Colfax 1869-1873

16b. Ulysses S. Grant & Henry Wilson 1873-1877

17a. Rutherford B. Hayes & William Wheeler 1877-1881

18a. James A. Garfield & Chester A. Arthur 1881

19a. Chester A. Arthur *takes presidency on Garfield's assassination* 1881-1885

20a. Grover Cleveland & Thomas A. Hendricks 1885-1889

21a. Alson Streeter & Charles E. Cunningham 1889-1893

22a. Simon Wing & Charles Matchett 1893-1897

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Re-Election Forum Presidential History: Presidents and VPs

1a.  George Washington & John Adams, 1789-1793

1b.  George Washington & John Adams 1793-1797

2a.  Thomas Jefferson & John Adams 1797-1801

2b. Thomas Jefferson & John Adams 1801-1805

2c. Thomas Jefferson & George Clinton 1805-1809

3a. James Madison & George Clinton 1809-1813

3b. James Madison & Elbridge Gerry 1813-1817

4a. James Monroe & Daniel D. Tompkins 1817-1821

5a. John Quincy Adams & Richard Rush 1821-1825

6a. Henry Clay & Nathan Sanford 1825-1829

7a. John Quincy Adams & Richard Rush 1829-1833

8a. Henry Clay & John Sergeant 1833-1837

9a. Daniel Webster & Francis Granger 1837-1841

10a. James Birney & Thomas Earle 1841-1845

10b. James Birney & Thomas Morris 1845-1849

11a. Gerrit Smith & Charles Foote 1849-1853

12a. Winfield Scott & William A. Graham 1853-1857

13a. John C. Fremont & William L. Dayton 1857-1861

14a. Abraham Lincoln & Hannibal Hamlin 1861-1865

14b. Abraham Lincoln & Andrew Johnson 1865

15a. Andrew Johnson *takes presidency on Lincoln's assassination* 1865-1869

16a. Ulysses S. Grant & Schuyler Colfax 1869-1873

16b. Ulysses S. Grant & Henry Wilson 1873-1877

17a. Rutherford B. Hayes & William Wheeler 1877-1881

18a. James A. Garfield & Chester A. Arthur 1881

19a. Chester A. Arthur *takes presidency on Garfield's assassination* 1881-1885

20a. Grover Cleveland & Thomas A. Hendricks 1885-1889

21a. Alson Streeter & Charles E. Cunningham 1889-1893

22a. Simon Wing & Charles Matchett 1893-1897

I hate to say this, and this is an area I can be stubborn on, but I stand by my choice for 1872, and my 1876 and 1880 choices cannot be entered until that's rectified. I'm sorry, and no disrespect is intended, but I am quite firm on this (and 2016 will be an issue, too, if De La Fuente is not an option - but that's WAY into the future).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

I hate to say this, and this is an area I can be stubborn on, but I stand by my choice for 1872, and my 1876 and 1880 choices cannot be entered until that's rectified. I'm sorry, and no disrespect is intended, but I am quite firm on this (and 2016 will be an issue, too, if De La Fuente is not an option - but that's WAY into the future).

Consider your vote entered! And now, looking at the results..... Victoria Woodhull...... LOST! She got your vote but is still not President. But hey, now you can vote for the other ones too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Consider your vote entered! And now, looking at the results..... Victoria Woodhull...... LOST! She got your vote but is still not President. But hey, now you can vote for the other ones too!

And they say one vote doesn't make any difference...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Consider your vote entered! And now, looking at the results..... Victoria Woodhull...... LOST! She got your vote but is still not President. But hey, now you can vote for the other ones too!

It's a matter of principal and conviction, @Reagan04. I thought those were qualities you were strongly familiar with. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1904 seems to be tied between Roosevelt and Debs at the moment, after I've cast my vote for the former. So far it looks like President Bryan was unseated by Debs, and President Debs may very well be unseated by Roosevelt.

Any chance we can do this again some time, but with a runoff? And with different elections, maybe some senatorial, gubernatorial, and even other countries? Even if they don't use them for primaries or the GE. I think it'd be pretty fun to do :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nulla Lex Ink. said:

1904 seems to be tied between Roosevelt and Debs at the moment, after I've cast my vote for the former. So far it looks like President Bryan was unseated by Debs, and President Debs may very well be unseated by Roosevelt.

Any chance we can do this again some time, but with a runoff? And with different elections, maybe some senatorial, gubernatorial, and even other countries? Even if they don't use them for primaries or the GE. I think it'd be pretty fun to do :)

Good idea. Possibly so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electing these socialists would've caused another civil war. I wouldn't be surprised if European powers ended up militarily involved in the U.S during that time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need at least one more vote since the first election is tied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZedWilliamsR said:

Electing these socialists would've caused another civil war. I wouldn't be surprised if European powers ended up militarily involved in the U.S during that time. 

Not necessarily. Look, they were reelected! US turns into a blissful Scandinavian-style country with a high quality of life, free healthcare, free universities, maternity leave, more vacation, fewer wars, no imperialism, while still maintaining a powerful economy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Not necessarily. Look, they were reelected! US turns into a blissful Scandinavian-style country with a high quality of life, free healthcare, free universities, maternity leave, more vacation, fewer wars, no imperialism, while still maintaining a powerful economy. 

The Scandinavian countries are capitalist economies practicing a mix of social liberalism and modern social democracy that respect private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, and the selling of commodities on a relatively free market. If you wanted that you wouldn't vote for Marxists. The main point of divergence if you want to reach that end goal should probably be electing Adlai Stevenson in '52.

Edited by ZedWilliamsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ZedWilliamsR said:

The Scandinavian countries are capitalist economies practicing a mix of social liberalism and modern social democracy that respect private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, and the selling of commodities on a relatively free market. If you wanted that you wouldn't vote for Marxists.

That's pretty much what would have occurred. These labor socialists would have to deal with a mostly capitalistic Congress. The laws that passed would be a mix of socialism and capitalism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second election is now tied. We need another vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, vcczar said:

That's pretty much what would have occurred. These labor socialists would have to deal with a mostly capitalistic Congress. The laws that passed would be a mix of socialism and capitalism. 

If they're winning presidential elections I am assuming that they are also taking significant seats in congress or outright winning in congressional elections. Any attempt a genuine socialist transformation of the economy and a civil war breaks out between capitalists/socialists with European powers (Mainly the UK) sending military aid to the capitalist side. Maybe you can argue that they would do what the UK's Labour Party did but that viewpoint would go against anything I can find about what socialists in the U.S around that time say they wanted to do. I'd have trouble ignoring everything Eugene Debs and other socialists said to make up a perceived ideal candidate in my head who will govern just as I want them to.

The democratic socialists of today were called "sewer socialists" back then and were heavily ridiculed by the majority of the socialist party for not being strong enough, they didn't have the historical examples we have now to guide them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Second election is now tied. We need another vote. 

Somehow the few times I participate I always manage to be the tiebreaker but here you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SirLagsalott said:

Somehow the few times I participate I always manage to be the tiebreaker but here you go.

You tied the first election again. We need another vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

You tied the first election again. We need another vote.  

Kingthero did, he voted 4 minutes after me. Rip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vcczar said:

That's pretty much what would have occurred. These labor socialists would have to deal with a mostly capitalistic Congress. The laws that passed would be a mix of socialism and capitalism. 

 

2 hours ago, ZedWilliamsR said:

If they're winning presidential elections I am assuming that they are also taking significant seats in congress or outright winning in congressional elections. Any attempt a genuine socialist transformation of the economy and a civil war breaks out between capitalists/socialists with European powers (Mainly the UK) sending military aid to the capitalist side. Maybe you can argue that they would do what the UK's Labour Party did but that viewpoint would go against anything I can find about what socialists in the U.S around that time say they wanted to do. I'd have trouble ignoring everything Eugene Debs and other socialists said to make up a perceived ideal candidate in my head who will govern just as I want them to.

The democratic socialists of today were called "sewer socialists" back then and were heavily ridiculed by the majority of the socialist party for not being strong enough, they didn't have the historical examples we have now to guide them.

This was also pre-Russian Revolution. What happened in Russia from 1917 onward actually sharply divided the international community of Socialist/Labour/Communist/Anarchist/Other Marxist Parties into two broad camps - those who were quite impressed and wanted to emulate said success in their home nations, and formed the 3rd International (or Cominterm), or affiliated with it, in Moscow with Lenin, and those who felt they had gone way too far and were actually somewhat frightened (whether they admitted it or not) and began, more or less, the slow process of moderating to things like Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. And thus, in the U.S., William Z. Foster and Norman Thomas took Debs' Party and split it into these two directions, respectively, creating a sharp rift that never actually healed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vcczar said:

Not necessarily. Look, they were reelected! US turns into a blissful Scandinavian-style country with a high quality of life, free healthcare, free universities, maternity leave, more vacation, fewer wars, no imperialism, while still maintaining a powerful economy. 

He's right you know, Debs, Haywood, and the Socialist movement back then, were actually Socialists, not Social-Democrats like Bernie Sanders, who think you can reform away the bad parts of Capitalism, and even if they did have to moderate, look what America did to Salvador Allende, he was very much a mild mannered reformist, but when ITT, and the industrialists squealed to Washington, America organized economic warfare, and backed a military coup by one, Augusto Pinochet, to depose of Allende, and we all know how that turned out, but I guess by installing brutally repressive dictators, you're actually giving people freedom, and democracy. If Debs was elected, he would've been America's Allende, most likely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the tie in election 1 isn't broken, I'll roll a dice to determine the winner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

He's right you know, Debs, Haywood, and the Socialist movement back then, were actually Socialists, not Social-Democrats like Bernie Sanders, who think you can reform away the bad parts of Capitalism, and even if they did have to moderate, look what America did to Salvador Allende, he was very much a mild mannered reformist, but when ITT, and the industrialists squealed to Washington, America organized economic warfare, and backed a military coup by one, Augusto Pinochet, to depose of Allende, and we all know how that turned out, but I guess by installing brutally repressive dictators, you're actually giving people freedom, and democracy. If Debs was elected, he would've been America's Allende, most likely.

 

As I've mentioned twice, there's an older Chilean-Canadian man living my building who was a veteran of the insurgent force that fought against Pinoche (which he says had personal instruction at some point from Che Guevara, himself). It still brings him to tears remembering three days of being tortured under detention of Pincohe's secret police, and when the news announced the former chief of that secret police had tied back in, 2014, or so, I think, in a prison cell, he was practically in a celebratory mood. He wears Che Guevara T-shirts and caps (usually marketed here in Canada to people a third his age), and follows Cuban and Venezuelan politics, and was very upset when the Chile Vamos Alliance - a much, much softer-core right-wing coalition than Pinoche's group, and only a small fraction as dictatorial or human-rights abusive, admittedly - won the last Chilean election. He's also had some very "colourful" metaphors for Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, and Trump that Anthony probably wouldn't appreciate me repeating here. But the fact is, I know a man who knows first hand about Pinochet, and he is a stain of blood and a national shame for anyone that has a conscience and ethics and a moral centre on American and British foreign policy - one of many such horrid leaders and tyrants on Washington and London (and, though not Pinoche) Paris' payrolls meant to cordon off and stop the spread of Communism, but who were, in the end, no better and sometimes worse than anyone the Soviets could prop up. Mission failed! No one won the Cold War! It was a war that couldn't be won, despite the Western World prematurely claiming "utter victory." It was only a stalemate because nuclear war was averted. Then again, no war ever fought since the end of WW2 has ever been a complete, unqualified victory for anyone, anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, vcczar said:

If the tie in election 1 isn't broken, I'll roll a dice to determine the winner. 

Voted. And I would still like to have my vote acknowledged for 1872 (and my warning about options for 2016 still looms).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Voted. And I would still like to have my vote acknowledged for 1872 (and my warning about options for 2016 still looms).

Rather than break a tie, you created another one haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Rather than break a tie, you created another one haha

To break a tie, I would have had to vote for McKinley - and I would not vote for the Father of American Imperialism and the Underworld Fence of the Theft of Four Nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patine said:

Voted. And I would still like to have my vote acknowledged for 1872 (and my warning about options for 2016 still looms).

I acknowledge the vote, but it still doesn't change the result. I'll add your preferred party in 2016 if the party gains 1% or more in more than one state. I don't know how well they performed. I just can't add every single party or it's just going to tax my strength in making these polls. I'm often putting these together in a window of two minutes of free time. I think the manner that I'm doing this is preferable to my original idea of just having the major parties, which is how I almost did it to save time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...