Why did Taft do so bad in California in 1912?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:39:26 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Why did Taft do so bad in California in 1912?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why did Taft do so bad in California in 1912?  (Read 720 times)
heatcharger
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,238
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -1.04, S: -0.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 03, 2016, 01:49:08 PM »

He won the state by a wide margin in 1908 when he won, but then got a whopping 0.58% the next time around. Sure, the progressive lane was occupied by Roosevelt and even Debs, but why was there no loyalty to the Republican party in the state?
Logged
LLR
LongLiveRock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,956


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2016, 01:50:37 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
ill ind
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2016, 11:56:11 AM »

California governor Hiram Johnson was Roosevelt's running mate and probably brought the entire Republican party apparatus in line behind him.  Incidentaly in 1916 Charles Hughes refused to appear with Johnson feeling he was a traitor for running with Roosevelt.  It is often felt that this bad blood cost Hughes California and the election.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.204 seconds with 13 queries.