|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 08:26:16 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: Should've left the Pangolins alone, Apocrypha)
  1860: South unites behind Douglas
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: 1860: South unites behind Douglas  (Read 812 times)
HarrisonL
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 433


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: -1.44

P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 08, 2019, 10:22:39 am »



What do y'all think of this solely Lincoln vs Douglas matchup?
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,963


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2019, 10:41:34 am »

Indiana and Pennsylvania would almost certainly vote for Douglas before Ohio (which even Frmont won in '56), and I tend to think New York would go Democratic as well in a scenario where Douglas has a national majority. Of course, the greater difficulty is for Douglas to win back the Southern fire eaters who backed Breckinridge IOTL without simultaneously alienating the Old Northwest. I tend to think a Democratic victory was impossible by 1860 short of adjudication by the House; the country was too deeply divided to elect a national candidate, and the mathematics of the electoral college meant the North would outvote the South in a sectional contest.
Logged
#Solid4096
Solid4096
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,319


Political Matrix
E: -9.25, S: -8.88

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2019, 03:33:54 pm »

Lincoln still wins by an extremely narrow Electoral College margin (only losing his 4 Electoral votes in New Jersey, and all electoral votes from California and Oregon compared to his real life performance), all while he loses the National Popular Vote by slightly more than 20%.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,250


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2019, 03:35:14 pm »

Even if the entire over 60% of voters who didn't vote for Lincoln all vote for the same candidate, Lincoln still wins.
Logged
Cold War Liberal
KennedyWannabe99
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,295
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -6.53

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2019, 11:11:49 am »

Lincoln still wins by an extremely narrow Electoral College margin (only losing his 4 Electoral votes in New Jersey, and all electoral votes from California and Oregon compared to his real life performance), all while he loses the National Popular Vote by slightly more than 20%.

Even if the entire over 60% of voters who didn't vote for Lincoln all vote for the same candidate, Lincoln still wins.

That's insane. What a polarized election.
Logged
LoneStarDem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 981
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2019, 12:13:22 pm »

Lincoln still wins baby.
Logged
morgankingsley
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,063
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2019, 01:30:17 pm »

Lincoln still wins by an extremely narrow Electoral College margin (only losing his 4 Electoral votes in New Jersey, and all electoral votes from California and Oregon compared to his real life performance), all while he loses the National Popular Vote by slightly more than 20%.

Even if the entire over 60% of voters who didn't vote for Lincoln all vote for the same candidate, Lincoln still wins.

That's insane. What a polarized election.

Yeah in this timeline where such a thing happens, people don't get to bitch about trump losing by 2.1 percent since that would be nothing in comparison
Logged
Lincoln Council Speaker S019
S019
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,109
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2019, 01:34:44 pm »



What do y'all think of this solely Lincoln vs Douglas matchup?

I say IN votes Democrat and OH votes Republican

Also what happened in SC
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,963


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2019, 01:37:55 pm »

20% shading indicates the state's electors were chosen by the state legislature.
Logged
#Solid4096
Solid4096
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,319


Political Matrix
E: -9.25, S: -8.88

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2019, 02:09:48 pm »

Lincoln still wins by an extremely narrow Electoral College margin (only losing his 4 Electoral votes in New Jersey, and all electoral votes from California and Oregon compared to his real life performance), all while he loses the National Popular Vote by slightly more than 20%.

Even if the entire over 60% of voters who didn't vote for Lincoln all vote for the same candidate, Lincoln still wins.

That's insane. What a polarized election.

Yeah in this timeline where such a thing happens, people don't get to bitch about trump losing by 2.1 percent since that would be nothing in comparison

Well, a major factor in Lincoln not winning the popular vote in such a case is that he was not on the ballot in 10 states for completely arbitrary reasons, and slaves were barred from voting in any event. He could have won the popular vote if he was on the ballot in every state (including South Carolina actually having a direct popular vote and not picking electors in the state legislature) and if slaves were allowed to vote.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,692
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2019, 03:20:13 pm »

Lincoln still wins by an extremely narrow Electoral College margin (only losing his 4 Electoral votes in New Jersey, and all electoral votes from California and Oregon compared to his real life performance), all while he loses the National Popular Vote by slightly more than 20%.

Even if the entire over 60% of voters who didn't vote for Lincoln all vote for the same candidate, Lincoln still wins.

That's insane. What a polarized election.

Yeah in this timeline where such a thing happens, people don't get to bitch about trump losing by 2.1 percent since that would be nothing in comparison

Well, a major factor in Lincoln not winning the popular vote in such a case is that he was not on the ballot in 10 states for completely arbitrary reasons, and slaves were barred from voting in any event. He could have won the popular vote if he was on the ballot in every state (including South Carolina actually having a direct popular vote and not picking electors in the state legislature) and if slaves were allowed to vote.

Wasn't the reason that Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in those states because no men could be found to serve as electors for him?
Logged
#Solid4096
Solid4096
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,319


Political Matrix
E: -9.25, S: -8.88

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2019, 03:57:52 pm »

Lincoln still wins by an extremely narrow Electoral College margin (only losing his 4 Electoral votes in New Jersey, and all electoral votes from California and Oregon compared to his real life performance), all while he loses the National Popular Vote by slightly more than 20%.

Even if the entire over 60% of voters who didn't vote for Lincoln all vote for the same candidate, Lincoln still wins.

That's insane. What a polarized election.

Yeah in this timeline where such a thing happens, people don't get to bitch about trump losing by 2.1 percent since that would be nothing in comparison

Well, a major factor in Lincoln not winning the popular vote in such a case is that he was not on the ballot in 10 states for completely arbitrary reasons, and slaves were barred from voting in any event. He could have won the popular vote if he was on the ballot in every state (including South Carolina actually having a direct popular vote and not picking electors in the state legislature) and if slaves were allowed to vote.

Wasn't the reason that Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in those states because no men could be found to serve as electors for him?

Yes, and I think the reason why that happened was recursively because many people would have had to be in fear of a potentially violent response. Also, if slaves could vote, then it would have been much easier for Lincoln to be on the ballot since it would be a very easy source of electors for him. He also probably would have won South Carolina and Mississippi outright since slaves were then a clear majority of those states populations.
Logged
Southern Delegate Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,279
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.88, S: -1.74


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2019, 09:48:16 pm »

Lincoln still prevails with 157 EVs with Douglas winning OH and losing IL.
Logged
Lincoln Council Speaker S019
S019
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,109
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2019, 11:58:34 am »

What do people think would have happened of Bell was the sole candidate? Also how badly would Breckinridge lose in a two way race?

Also, why did Lincoln win majorities in Northern states IRL, that it would have been unlikely to obtain in a two way race.

Also, to be honest, the 60-40 PV is not even the worst that it can get, as Lincoln won large majorities in New England, it would be interesting if someone can see just how large the PV-EV disparity can be
Logged
Lincoln Council Speaker S019
S019
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,109
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2019, 12:05:26 pm »

What do people think would have happened of Bell was the sole candidate? Also how badly would Breckinridge lose in a two way race?

Also, why did Lincoln win majorities in Northern states IRL, that it would have been unlikely to obtain in a two way race.

Also, to be honest, the 60-40 PV is not even the worst that it can get, as Lincoln won large majorities in New England, it would be interesting if someone can see just how large the PV-EV disparity can be

I think that the Democratic split and candidates attacking each other, drove moderate Northerners into the arms of Lincoln (with the exception of NY and NJ moderates), without a split, I think that, the candidates would not have been attacked as much

Just Bell:


Just Breckinridge:


Just Douglas:

Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,963


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2019, 06:14:25 pm »

Lincoln still prevails with 157 EVs with Douglas winning OH and losing IL.
LOL, no. Ohio was a Republican bastion and the center of anti-slavery activity west of the Appalachians going back to the 1840s. Under no circumstances would it vote for Douglas before his own home state.

These are . . . very bad. In particular, Bell as the anti-Republican unity candidate makes no sense at all in the context of 1860. Even if Bell somehow convinces the South to back his candidacy, why would Northern Democrats support a Southern Whig? I'd expect Lincoln to do better in the North in a one-on-one race against Bell, who would be unlikely to receive the support of immigrants or wage laborers who backed the Democratic ticket IOTL.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,963


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2019, 06:23:34 pm »

Also, why did Lincoln win majorities in Northern states IRL, that it would have been unlikely to obtain in a two way race.
1860 effectively was a two-way race, or rather two separate head-to-head contests on either side of the Mason-Dixon line. The division of the Democratic Party along sectional lines meant there was no truly national candidate as in 1856: so in the North, the election was between Lincoln and Douglas, while Bell was an afterthought and Breckinridge a nonentity. In New York and Pennsylvania, the Democrats arranged a fusion ticket pledged to both Douglas and Breckinridge, hoping to deny Lincoln an electoral majority without success. As stated previously, sectional politics meant that no candidate could successfully appeal to North and South simultaneously so any scenario where Lincoln has a single opponent likely results in him winning by more popular vote-wise than IOTL.
Logged
morgankingsley
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,063
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2019, 04:11:20 am »

I always have been curious on how much the historical perception would be on Douglas on the event that he somehow won. It would be very interesting to see a timeline of that.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,963


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 16, 2019, 02:56:44 pm »

I always have been curious on how much the historical perception would be on Douglas on the event that he somehow won. It would be very interesting to see a timeline of that.
Assuming he still dies in the summer of '61 (and I've never heard of the presidency improving one's health), we'd end up with President Joseph Lane or President Herschel Johnson, which would be . . . not good.
Logged
Lincoln Council Speaker S019
S019
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,109
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 16, 2019, 03:05:48 pm »

I always have been curious on how much the historical perception would be on Douglas on the event that he somehow won. It would be very interesting to see a timeline of that.
Assuming he still dies in the summer of '61 (and I've never heard of the presidency improving one's health), we'd end up with President Joseph Lane or President Herschel Johnson, which would be . . . not good.

Lane is beyond terrible, but Johnson was one of the more moderate southern Democrats (note lower case "s"), he would basically be James Buchanan, all over again, which is bad, but not anywhere, near as bad as Lane.

Still puzzles me how Lane got elected in Oregon and Confederate sympathizers got elected in California
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,963


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2019, 05:40:06 pm »

I always have been curious on how much the historical perception would be on Douglas on the event that he somehow won. It would be very interesting to see a timeline of that.
Assuming he still dies in the summer of '61 (and I've never heard of the presidency improving one's health), we'd end up with President Joseph Lane or President Herschel Johnson, which would be . . . not good.

Lane is beyond terrible, but Johnson was one of the more moderate southern Democrats (note lower case "s"), he would basically be James Buchanan, all over again, which is bad, but not anywhere, near as bad as Lane.

Still puzzles me how Lane got elected in Oregon and Confederate sympathizers got elected in California
Buchanan was hardly a moderate: to the contrary he covertly pressured the Supreme Court to back Taney's ruling in Scott v. Sanford and his administration was emptying federal arsenals to outfit the Confederate Army in the months leading up to Lincoln's inauguration. Johnson was a "moderate" Southern Democrat only in the sense that he thought the South should wait for Lincoln to act against slavery and then secede, rather than seceding preemptively. There was nothing moderate about his actual views on slavery or its future in the territories.

As for Oregon and California, the settlers who emigrated there after the Mexican War were hardly Yankee Puritans, and both states leaned Democratic throughout the 1850s in spite of being nominally "free" states. Much like Indiana and Illinois, California outlawed slavery because whites there feared the competition from unpaid slave labor: otherwise, the state remained hostile to blacks and generally Southern in its sympathies. Only the diligent efforts of pro-Union citizens in the months leading up to Fort Sumter prevented secessionists from taking California out of the Union, either as an independent republic or a Confederate state.
Logged
brucejoel99
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2019, 02:39:08 am »

Yeah, even if you combined ALL of the non-Lincoln votes together into one hypothetical candidate, Lincoln STILL would've won despite winning less than 40% of the popular vote against a "candidate" that would've won over 60%. That kinda blows your mind but it's mathematically true... Lincoln basically campaigned in only half of the country, & his vote totals showed that. It was the electoral college that saved him in the end, & even a unified Democratic ticket probably wouldn't have been able to defeat him.
Logged
Southern Delegate Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,279
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.88, S: -1.74


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2019, 08:33:39 pm »



Abraham Lincoln - 172 EVs, 43%
Stephen A Douglas - 131 EVs, 35%
Logged
Pages: [1] 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