|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2020, 04:36:18 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Where is my Freistaat Preußen avatar?, Apocrypha)
  1920: Jeanette Rankin (R) vs. William McAdoo (D)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: 1920: Jeanette Rankin (R) vs. William McAdoo (D)  (Read 2754 times)
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 12, 2010, 09:06:10 pm »

Everything else stays the same.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2010, 02:29:04 pm »

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.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,043
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2010, 02:50:46 pm »

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!

Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2010, 02:53:22 pm »

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.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,043
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2010, 02:55:50 pm »

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.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2010, 02:57:54 pm »

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.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,757
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2010, 03:08:17 pm »

It would be really cool if Rankin became President in a TL. Pacifism ftw.
Logged
James L. Buckley
Rookie
**
Posts: 27


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2010, 06:35:23 pm »

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.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2010, 06:50:16 pm »



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.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2010, 07:28:32 pm »



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.
Logged
redcommander
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,817
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2010, 07:46:16 pm »

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?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2010, 08:15:39 pm »

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.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2010, 08:16:50 pm »

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.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2010, 08:30:08 pm »

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).
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2010, 08:41:25 pm »

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.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2010, 08:43:32 pm »

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.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2010, 08:50:05 pm »

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.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2010, 08:52:06 pm »

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.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2010, 11:05:48 pm »

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.
Logged
hawkeye59
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2010, 11:07:16 pm »

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? Tongue
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2010, 11:08:07 pm »

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? Tongue

1928 was not 1920, and Rankin is who is at the top of the ticket here.
Logged
hawkeye59
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2010, 11:09:40 pm »

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? Tongue

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?
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2010, 11:10:44 pm »

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? Tongue

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.
Logged
hawkeye59
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2010, 11:12:03 pm »

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? Tongue

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.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 13, 2010, 11:14:49 pm »

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? Tongue

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines