Jump to content
270soft Forum

Elections Through History


jvikings1

Recommended Posts

Martin Van Buren

For the Whigs: Webster or Scott

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

1844 Primaries:

Whigs:

Webster: 29.7% 372 delegates (wins Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine)

Scott: 28% 188 delegates (wins Illinois Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Virginia)

McLean: 25.8% 130 delegates (wins Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina(narrowly beats Webster), and New Jersey)

Clayton: 16.6% 42 delegates (wins Missouri and Delaware)

Webster is the nominee and gets Martin Van Buren to join him for VP

Democrats:

Van Buren: 25.1% 264 delegates (wins Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut(narrowly defeats Polk), Rhode Island, Illinois, and New Jersey)

Polk: 20.3% 260 delegates (wins Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Mississippi)

Cass: 16.2% 136 delegates (wins Indiana, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama)

Calhoun: 12.6% 18 delegates (wins South Carolina)

Buchanan: 10.8% 36 delegates (wins Louisiana and Maryland)

Woodbury: 8.6% 0 delegates (won nothing)

Johnson: 6.4% 18 delegates (wins Arkansas)

Calhoun is the nominee, but drops out to become VP of Webster. George Dallas was his VP candidate.

Liberty:

Birney: 99.9% 800 delegates

Thomas Morris is his VP candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1848:

Daniel Webster runs w/o opposition for Whig nomination.

James Buchanan, Lewis Cass, Levi Woodbury, John C. Calhoun, and Martin Van Buren are running for the Democrats.

John P. Hale, Joshua Giddings, and Charles Francis Adams are the Free Soil candidates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Free Soil candidates had a real shot, I'd vote for CF Adams. However, unless it appears they have a real shot, I'll stick with Webster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd support Webster/Van Buren again. When Van Buren challenges Webster I'd probably support him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Webster may have been convinced to go through with Manifest Destiny, but he would have purchased the land rather than gone to war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Webster might get Van Buren as his VP candidate again. The Democrats are furious with Van Buren for becoming Webster's VP, but he has a small chance if the Democrats split their vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1848 primaries:

Democrat:

Case: 31.3% 404 delegates

Van Buren: 24.8% 112 delegates

Buchanan: 15.8% 154 delegates

Woodbury: 14.1% 148 delegates

Calhoun: 14% 18 delegates

Van Buren turns down Webster's VP offer. Case accepts. Webster has been a great unifying candidate.

Free Soil:

Hale: 57% 950 delegates

Adams: 22% 150 delegates

Giddings: 21.1% 400 delegates

Link to post
Share on other sites

1852 election:

Winfield Scott, Millard Fillmore, William Seward, and John Crittenden are running for the Whigs. Daniel Webster cannot run again.

Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Lewis Cass, William Marcy, Stephen A. Douglas, and Sam Houston are running for the Democrats.

John P. Hale is the Free Soil candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a difficult election to say for whom I'd have vote for...

As we all know today Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan were among the worst presidents. So I would probably decide for Scott or Crittenden at the Whigs primary and for Douglas from the Democrats.

Without the knowedge I have today, I would have voted for Scott and Pierce.

I'm curious to see who will win the primaries. :D

Luki

Link to post
Share on other sites

1852 primaries:

Scott: 33% 236 delegates (wins Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Alabama)

Fillmore: 29.1% 316 delegates (wins all others)

Seward: 24.1% 284 delegates (wins California, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maine)

Crittenden: 13.8% 26 delegates (wins Kentucky)

Fillmore wins the nomination. Winfield Scott is his VP candidate.

Democrats:

Buchanan wins the nomination in a close primary despite Pierce winning the popular vote.

Free Soil:

John P. Hale is the nominee.

General Election:

Buchanan wins in a landslide with 65% of the vote and all but Vermont (5 EVs). William Rufus King is VP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1856:

John C. Fremont, John McLean, and William Seward are running for the newly formed Republican Party.

Franklin Pierce is having a re-match with James Buchanan for the Democrat nomination.

George Law is the candidate for the American Party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seward and Buchanan in the primaries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buchanan is such a strange figure. He should have been a good president. No other president had more of a range of experience than Buchanan. He was a Northerner with strong Southern friends (his best friend, arguably his lover, was a Senator for Alabama, Rufus King). He had been a congressman, senator, diplomat and cabinet member. He used to be a Federalist before Andrew Jackson converted him. He just didn't know how to handle a crisis. Had he been president during a relatively peaceful time, he probably would have been a rather decent president.

If a book was made about the greatest American politicians (excluding presidents or presidencies), he might be in there, along with Martin Van Buren and John Quincy Adams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting. Everything I already read about Buchanan confirms this impression of him. I don't think he was an evil man who had an intention to ''ruin'' the country respectively I don't believe he sided with the southeners (for whatever reason...). In my humble opinion he was simply a poor guy, who was overwhelmed with the Presidency. Actually a sad story...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that Buchanan often gets lumped in by modern historians with Franklin Pierce, who DID seem to be an indecisive and ambivalent leader who played the North and South against each other and allegedly belonged to an imperialistic, pro-Slavery secret society with grand ambitions (the Knights of the Golden Crescent). For Buchanan, it probably is an unfair comparison, but one I've often seen implied or defaulted to if not directly stated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...