Near Unanimous Bryan 1896 wins in the Rocky Mountain States

[Skill and Chance]

William Jennings Bryan won 75-85% of the vote in NV, UT, CO, ID and MT in 1896.  Most of these were Weaver states in 1892 and MT actually went Republican then.  When Bryan ran again in 1900, he actually lost UT after breaking 82% in the previous cycle. I know the Democrats formally threw their lot in with Free Silver for 1896 and the issue faded by 1900, but that is a heck of a swing in a single cycle.  Could it be a quirk of the small voting populations there at the time?   

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

1896 was an issues election, not a partisan one. Bryan appealed perfectly to Westerners.

[Benj]

1896 was an issues election, not a partisan one. Bryan appealed perfectly to Westerners.

And Utah in particular was subject to radical swings because results were largely determined by who the Mormon leadership endorsed (though non-Mormons in Utah have always been Democrats).

[TDAS04]

Historically, the West has been the region most prone to wild swings; it has always been less partisan than the East and South, and a small population also contributed to the large swings a century ago.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Economic depression due to the Panic of 1893, mountains chock full of silver, and a charismatic, populist leader who appealed a great deal to the people who lived there.

[Mr.Phips]

Economic depression due to the Panic of 1893, mountains chock full of silver, and a charismatic, populist leader who appealed a great deal to the people who lived there.

You would think that the 1893 Panic would have hurt the party in power in 1896. 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Economic depression due to the Panic of 1893, mountains chock full of silver, and a charismatic, populist leader who appealed a great deal to the people who lived there.

You would think that the 1893 Panic would have hurt the party in power in 1896. 

It should have, but it was understood that Cleveland and Bryan had precisely nothing in common.

[Skill and Chance]

Curiously, the 1896 and 1900 elections are probably the closest parallels we have to 2008 and 2012 in American history.  Relatively close, polarized elections immediately following an economic crisis with one party having a huge EC advantage (that ultimately didn't matter).

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I'd also argue that Bryan essentially laid the foundations of the modern party system. That is, 1896 began the trend that would, by 1932, firmly place the Democrats on the left and the Republicans on the right of the American political spectrum.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Economic depression due to the Panic of 1893, mountains chock full of silver, and a charismatic, populist leader who appealed a great deal to the people who lived there.

You would think that the 1893 Panic would have hurt the party in power in 1896. 

It should have, but it was understood that Cleveland and Bryan had precisely nothing in common.

Yes, a near-reversal of the election four years earlier. Anyone that insists the 1892 and 1896 were part of the same party system or set of elections is out of their mind. When people thought of Bryan, he wasn't exactly associated with the Bourbon Democrats in New York of all places.

[Mechaman]

Economic depression due to the Panic of 1893, mountains chock full of silver, and a charismatic, populist leader who appealed a great deal to the people who lived there.

You would think that the 1893 Panic would have hurt the party in power in 1896. 

It should have, but it was understood that Cleveland and Bryan had precisely nothing in common.

Disagreed.

Both were anti-imperialists and in favor of free trade.
Granted, those seemed to be Democratic prerequisites of the time.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Economic depression due to the Panic of 1893, mountains chock full of silver, and a charismatic, populist leader who appealed a great deal to the people who lived there.

You would think that the 1893 Panic would have hurt the party in power in 1896. 

It should have, but it was understood that Cleveland and Bryan had precisely nothing in common.

Disagreed.

Both were anti-imperialists and in favor of free trade.
Granted, those seemed to be Democratic prerequisites of the time.

That being said, anti-imperialism was hardly the big, important issue of 1896, and their opposition to tariffs can be cast in two very different lights. On the one hand, Cleveland was a free market absolutist who'd be damned if those protectionist Republicans got their way. On the other, Bryan was an agrarian who had little stake in strengthening domestic industry and pushing the economy away from agriculture.