|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 03, 2020, 12:27:26 pm
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: Coolface's deceased great-granduncle, 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 2757 times)
hawkeye59
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 13, 2010, 11:17:27 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.
Yeah, but like 5 percent of men would vote for her.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2010, 11:18:28 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.
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.
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 #27 on: February 13, 2010, 11:19:17 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.

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 13, 2010, 11:21:06 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.

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.

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.
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 #29 on: February 13, 2010, 11:26:36 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.

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.
Logged
redcommander
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,817
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2010, 11:30:28 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.

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.

Why would you assume men would be so sexist?  
Logged
hawkeye59
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2010, 11:34:09 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.

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.

Why would you assume men would be so sexist?  
They were at that time.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2010, 11:44:50 pm »


And you know this how?

Oh, right, you don't.
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