Who Would You Have Voted For Between 1856-2020 among the Democrats and Republicans (+ major 3rd party bids)

[vcczar]

New poll. I only include major 3rd party bids, mainly because I don't want to type out every single 3rd party in every election. 

Note: Do not comment without first taking the poll. Please. 

[jvikings1]

I can’t take the poll because of a few races that I would refuse to support either (2008 most notably).

[10centjimmy]

Whoops, missed Fremont on that last one. Yikes. 

[Pringles]

13 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

Whoops, missed Fremont on that last one. Yikes. 

Know-Nothing sympathizer! 😛

jk jk

[Edouard]

Prior to the 60s I would have been a centrist who could switch his vote between the two main parties, but Eisenhover would have been my last republican vote.

It would take the equivalent of a Trump democrat to make my vote switch.

 

[10centjimmy]

7 hours ago, Pringles said:

Know-Nothing sympathizer! 😛

jk jk

As a member of several of the targeted populations of the Know-Nothing platform, I'm not even sure they'd want my vote!

[Timur]

3 hours ago, 10centjimmy said:

As a member of several of the targeted populations of the Know-Nothing platform, I'm not even sure they'd want my vote!

They probably know nothing of your ethnicity. :P

[themiddlepolitical]

1872-1896 is by far where I lack the most education on politics. 

[vcczar]

21 minutes ago, themiddlepolitical said:

1872-1896 is by far where I lack the most education on politics. 

Most people do because it involved basically no major warfare and weak presidents. However, it's arguably one of the most interesting times, even though it has a lot of dark domestic moments: 

• Republicans start abandoning efforts to aid or protect black voters. The argument is that blacks won't vote Democrat, so they needed upset white voters by interfering in the South. 
• Disenfranchising of black and poor whites in the South after biracial fusion tickets threatened Democratic power in several election.
• High levels of 3rd party voting, mainly due to corruption of the major parties but also because the major parties seemed uninterested in the changing work force from rural to urban or in the debts of poor farmers.
• You have massive industrialization, spike in the growth of the labor movement, suffrage movement, income-gap inequality, etc. These movements were about to burst into the Progressive Movement. 
• You got a lot of major political figures like James G Blaine and Roscoe Conkling, both of whom would have been household names today if they lived in a time of major national or global crisis. At this time just about every major US Senator and the Speaker were more notable and powerful than the presidents. Blaine was a major orator with a lot of charisma. Both Blaine and Conkling were arguably more important leaders for the GOP than the GOP presidents at this time, with the exception of Grant. Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, and Harrison made little effort to be party leaders, and the US Senators and Speakers were at least their equal in power. Grover Cleveland is an outlier in that he was clearly party leader while as president. My guess is that the GOP had solid hold on things since the Civil War and it was difficult for Democratic leaders to even establish a foothold. 
• Speaker of the House during this time seemed to wield more power and influence than they do today. There was at least more deference. 
• Tariffs and currency were probably the major issues during this time, and they are hard to understand, which probably decreases the interest factor in this period. Bimetallism vs gold standard and high vs low tariff were the major factors in every election. 
• Military and naval expansionism (precursor to imperialism) and isolation were major factors. 

Overall, that 1872-1892 time period is just a totally different game. It's analogy is probably 1816-1828 and 1920-1928. These are both time periods in which there's a lot of relative peace, weak presidents, but also seeds for the major issues of the next era. 

For readers of history, I'd say the Gilded Age, which I define as 1868-1892, is seriously underrated in importance and interest. The interesting things are just more subtle. and more in the political strategies of those like Conkling and Blaine. 

[themiddlepolitical]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Most people do because it involved basically no major warfare and weak presidents. However, it's arguably one of the most interesting times, even though it has a lot of dark domestic moments: 

• Republicans start abandoning efforts to aid or protect black voters. The argument is that blacks won't vote Democrat, so they needed upset white voters by interfering in the South. 
• Disenfranchising of black and poor whites in the South after biracial fusion tickets threatened Democratic power in several election.
• High levels of 3rd party voting, mainly due to corruption of the major parties but also because the major parties seemed uninterested in the changing work force from rural to urban or in the debts of poor farmers.
• You have massive industrialization, spike in the growth of the labor movement, suffrage movement, income-gap inequality, etc. These movements were about to burst into the Progressive Movement. 
• You got a lot of major political figures like James G Blaine and Roscoe Conkling, both of whom would have been household names today if they lived in a time of major national or global crisis. At this time just about every major US Senator and the Speaker were more notable and powerful than the presidents. Blaine was a major orator with a lot of charisma. Both Blaine and Conkling were arguably more important leaders for the GOP than the GOP presidents at this time, with the exception of Grant. Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, and Harrison made little effort to be party leaders, and the US Senators and Speakers were at least their equal in power. Grover Cleveland is an outlier in that he was clearly party leader while as president. My guess is that the GOP had solid hold on things since the Civil War and it was difficult for Democratic leaders to even establish a foothold. 
• Speaker of the House during this time seemed to wield more power and influence than they do today. There was at least more deference. 
• Tariffs and currency were probably the major issues during this time, and they are hard to understand, which probably decreases the interest factor in this period. Bimetallism vs gold standard and high vs low tariff were the major factors in every election. 
• Military and naval expansionism (precursor to imperialism) and isolation were major factors. 

Overall, that 1872-1892 time period is just a totally different game. It's analogy is probably 1816-1828 and 1920-1928. These are both time periods in which there's a lot of relative peace, weak presidents, but also seeds for the major issues of the next era. 

For readers of history, I'd say the Gilded Age, which I define as 1868-1892, is seriously underrated in importance and interest. The interesting things are just more subtle. and more in the political strategies of those like Conkling and Blaine. 

Awesome thank you for the breakdown, Definitely learned a lot just from that.

Now excited for that area in AMPU as well

[DakotaHale]

george wallave

[ShortKing]

I approached this like I had only the information that would have been available to a voter at the time, if I could take into account what I know now in my vote, I’d definitely vote Cox over Harding, and maybe Truman over Dewey.

[mark2]

very unfortunate that I had to pick for all of them, certain elections I'd rather write in a 14-year-old with self-diagnosed "depression" whose knowledge of the presidency comes down to starting wars and "tax the rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

As a few others said, I tried to put myself into the elections and decide how I would have voted given where my family was located in the country, what occupations my ancestors had, and what the general mood of the country was at the time. It was a fun thinking simulation of politics and how issues change and how voters could have changed depending on the salience of certain issues. 

[vcczar]

35 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

As a few others said, I tried to put myself into the elections and decide how I would have voted given where my family was located in the country, what occupations my ancestors had, and what the general mood of the country was at the time. It was a fun thinking simulation of politics and how issues change and how voters could have changed depending on the salience of certain issues. 

Where were your ancestors? 

I had ancestors in MA, OH, KS, TX, NY, PA, AR, MO, WI, IN in 1856-2020, but mostly the first four. The others were temporary places during election years. I'm in PA, but lived in NY, and I'm from TX.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Where were your ancestors? 

I had ancestors in MA, OH, KS, TX, NY, PA, AR, MO, WI, IN in 1856-2020, but mostly the first four. The others were temporary places during election years. I'm in PA, but lived in NY, and I'm from TX.

Well, my maternal family were and still are in Western NC and East TN, so Appalachian folks. Paternal family immigrated to MN in early 20th century from Finland for being socialists and anti-Russian. I was born and raised in TN but out in CA now.

[Zenobiyl]

Some of these votes don’t reflect my actual votes, but what I would’ve chosen had there been only two options to pick from and no other choice.