How did Debs (Socialist) get 6% in 1912?

[Max]

Looking at the 1912 presidential map, I was surprised Debs got 5.99% of the popular vote.

In 1908 and 1916, Socialists only got about 3%.

How could Debs win that much of the vote, especially with TR and Wilson in the race, which were both economically left-of-center?

Any ideas?

[Cubby]

Before the Russian Revolution in 1917, socialism had broader support in America. I'm not sure why Debs did better than usual in 1912. It was the height of the reform period (Muckrakers, women's sufferage, etc.)

Debs even managed to win some counties. Two in Minnesota, one in North Dakota, one in Kansas and one somewhere else (5 in all). Of course this was easier in a year when the vote was split among many candidates. Its ironic that Debs did best in places like ND and Oklahoma, that are so conservative today.

[Max]

Before the Russian Revolution in 1917, socialism had broader support in America. I'm not sure why Debs did better than usual in 1912. It was the height of the reform period (Muckrakers, women's sufferage, etc.)

Debs even managed to win some counties. Two in Minnesota, one in North Dakota, one in Kansas and one somewhere else (5 in all). Of course this was easier in a year when the vote was split among many candidates. Its ironic that Debs did best in places like ND and Oklahoma, that are so conservative today.

Yes, I understand Oklahoma because TR didn't run there, but Nevada is surprising. I would have expected him to do better in Big Labor-states like West Virginia.

btw: Do you know Debs' best county result? Did he break 30% anywhere?

[MasterJedi]

Because people didn't know how stupid socialism is.

[minionofmidas]

Before the Russian Revolution in 1917, socialism had broader support in America. I'm not sure why Debs did better than usual in 1912. It was the height of the reform period (Muckrakers, women's sufferage, etc.)

Debs even managed to win some counties. Two in Minnesota, one in North Dakota, one in Kansas and one somewhere else (5 in all). Of course this was easier in a year when the vote was split among many candidates. Its ironic that Debs did best in places like ND and Oklahoma, that are so conservative today.

Yes, I understand Oklahoma because TR didn't run there, but Nevada is surprising. I would have expected him to do better in Big Labor-states like West Virginia.

Debs did great in the mining camps out west. Which made up a lot of Nevada's population at the time. He wasn't much supported by the AFL - they preferred the Dems (and in some regions the Republicans) - his main support was the more radical IWW, which wasn't a craft union, and thus much better suited to western conditions, where a man might be a ranch hand one season, a miner the next, a logger the next.
Anyways West Virginia wasn't even unionized yet at the time, that happened later.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Southern WV wasn't unionised until the '30's and "The President* wants you to join The Union", although Debs did break into double figures in a couple of counties there.

*President John L Lewis of the UMW that is...

[The Dowager Mod]

Because people didn't know how stupid socialism is.

And here folks is why many of us think conservatives are idiots.

[MasterJedi]

Because people didn't know how stupid socialism is.

And here folks is why many of us think conservatives are idiots.

And the same back for you you know.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Before the Russian Revolution in 1917, socialism had broader support in America. I'm not sure why Debs did better than usual in 1912. It was the height of the reform period (Muckrakers, women's sufferage, etc.)

Debs even managed to win some counties. Two in Minnesota, one in North Dakota, one in Kansas and one somewhere else (5 in all). Of course this was easier in a year when the vote was split among many candidates. Its ironic that Debs did best in places like ND and Oklahoma, that are so conservative today.

Yes, I understand Oklahoma because TR didn't run there, but Nevada is surprising. I would have expected him to do better in Big Labor-states like West Virginia.

btw: Do you know Debs' best county result? Did he break 30% anywhere?

His best was Lake county, here in Minnesota. He got 36.81% there. He also broke 30% in at least 4 more: Crawford, KS; Winn, LA; Marshall, OK and Vernon, LA.

The result in Lake conty wasn't unusual though, Debs and the Socialist party had always done well there. In fact it was somewhat ironically the only county in 1932 in Minnesota to vote for Hoover, as FDR and Norman Thomas split the vote (Thomas getting almost 20%). In future elections FDR won it easily, the Socialist vote had merged with the Democrats during the New Deal, and it remains ultra-Democratic today.

[Max]

btw: Do you know Debs' best county result? Did he break 30% anywhere?

His best was Lake county, here in Minnesota. He got 36.81% there. He also broke 30% in at least 4 more: Crawford, KS; Winn, LA; Marshall, OK and Vernon, LA.

The result in Lake conty wasn't unusual though, Debs and the Socialist party had always done well there. In fact it was somewhat ironically the only county in 1932 in Minnesota to vote for Hoover, as FDR and Norman Thomas split the vote (Thomas getting almost 20%). In future elections FDR won it easily, the Socialist vote had merged with the Democrats during the New Deal, and it remains ultra-Democratic today.

36%, wow. Interesting information, thank you.

[Speed of Sound]

I do believe that the main reason Debs did so well in 1912 is most likely because Debs is teh @wes0me.

[TomC]

I have several theories.

1. With Theodore Roosevelt running as a third party candidate, perhaps many people saw that candidates outside of the 2 major parties had a shot and took more risk. Both 1908 and 1916 were elections with incumbents expected to win, and with little dissent from within each party, unlike 1912, especially true for the GOP. (But also Wilson was nominated on the 46th ballot, so I suspect there was dissention within that party too.) If you were a voter against the incumbent, you knew your best shot was to vote for the other major party.

2. From 1900-1908, the Socialists had been building a better local network. Perhaps 1912 shows the results of that labor.

3. Due to the progressive era, distrust of trusts was greater than when TR was the President.

4. I'm betting turnout was higher in 1912. There was a lot of issue oriented activism, as can be seen i the Progressive movement as well as the constitutional amendments that were passed in 1913. Is there data on turnout for 1912?

5. Maybe some of the heavy immigration of the 1890s was finally seeing some naturalization and more participation by these citizen. I think I remember seeing that immigrants were the Socialists biggest faction.

[skybridge]

4. I'm betting turnout was higher in 1912. There was a lot of issue oriented activism, as can be seen i the Progressive movement as well as the constitutional amendments that were passed in 1913. Is there data on turnout for 1912?

I'm not sure about this one. After 1900, the total amount of votes cast didn't increase much each election until at least 1916. In fact, the number decreased from 1900 to 1904, and 1912 barely saw 160,000 more votes cast than its previous election.

[TomC]

OK, got a new one. Bryan railed against the eastern establishment quite a bit. He had been the Democratic standard bearer for decades really. Wilson was clearly more of an Eastern establishment type than Bryan, so many Bryan democrats whom he had successfully made wary of the East, didn't find much to like in Wilson from NJ. And though Wilson did quite well in the South, on semi-quick preusal, it looks like Debs did better than average in the West.

[Colin]

The Socialist vote in 1912 was mostly the culmination of two years of great electoral fortune for the Socialists. Their vote was probably helped by their ability to present themselves as a serious party that could actually win positions. This was due to the fact that in 1910 they won both their first congressional seat and large mayoral race, both in Milwaukee. In 1911 they made further gains in local races throughout the United States. The party also reached its zenith of membership around the 1912 race and its overall power was the greatest.

The overall character of the 1912 election also helped this. With three major candidates all of whom had a shot at winning the election the 1912 election was one of the few which was truely multi-party. The Socialist portrayed themselves as being on par with the Progressives as a nation-wide political movement.

The major reason why this then decreases sharply is two fold. First, after the 1912 election, Big Bill Haywood led radical syndicalist elements allied with the Industrial Workers of the World out of the party and into other Socialist parties. This led to an overall drop in support among more radical members. This was due in part to the party leadership becoming more under the influence of moderate elements from Milwaukee and New York City.

The second reason is that Debs did not run in 1916 when party support was still high and the outcome of the Socialist Party was still up in the air. When he decided not to run the Socialists lost much of Debs personal supporters and, with it, a very large number of votes. This was only exacerabated by the efforts of the Wilson administration against anti-war politicians, who were mostly Socialists, the Russian Revolution, which led to an overall decrease in support for Socialism in the United States, and, finally, the beginning of the Roaring Twenties which saw many of these formerly lower-class Socialist supporters became less radical as their standards of living improved and wages increased.

I hope that answers your question Max. If you're wondering why I know so much I did a 20 page essay on the Socialist Party for my US History class this year.

[minionofmidas]

Another reason why the Socialist vote went down from 1920 on is votes for women, btw.

[skybridge]

Another reason why the Socialist vote went down from 1920 on is votes for women, btw.

Those damn wacky liberals who initiated their suffrage movements all throughout history...

[Max]

...
I hope that answers your question Max. If you're wondering why I know so much I did a 20 page essay on the Socialist Party for my US History class this year.

Yes, that absolutely makes sense. I'd like to know how much Debs would have got if he'd have decided to run in 1916.

It's still amazing that in 1912 three out of the four strongest candidates were economically liberal guys.

The Bryan-Wilson argument also sounds good, AFCJTCash.

[minionofmidas]

It wasn't an isolated occurrence in an international view of course - 1912 was the best election so far of the German SPD; the French Marxists were finally getting well organized, the Labour Party in Britain was set up just before, and in Mexico a revolution broke out in 1911.

[Colin]

...
I hope that answers your question Max. If you're wondering why I know so much I did a 20 page essay on the Socialist Party for my US History class this year.

Yes, that absolutely makes sense. I'd like to know how much Debs would have got if he'd have decided to run in 1916.

Probably somewhere between 3-5%. Beside the radicals being leeched off by Haywood's defection and other high profile internal conflicts within the party moderate members were continually getting pulled in by the ever leftward moving Progressives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well not economic liberal since economic liberal means someone who supports deregulation, the free market, and a smaller government. If you mean economic leftists then that is also a mixed answer. For their day many of them were economic leftists, though you can debate whether Wilson was truely to the left economically, but if you look at them by today's standards only Debs would probably still be considered a leftist since even today conservatives in America support programs that were main parts of the Progressive platform.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While it might explain higher amounts of Socialist support in the West it doesn't take into account that the most successful states, in terms of overall Socialist offices obtained, were New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota where the Socialist support came mostly from a mix of blue-collar industrial workers and immigrants. Also due to Debs radical stances on the issues I would doubt that more than the most radical populists would have come into the Socialist fold.

[Max]

Well not economic liberal since economic liberal means someone who supports deregulation, the free market, and a smaller government.

I used the term in your American way: liberal = leftist

[Reignman]

Powerful speaker.

[jimrtex]

Another reason why the Socialist vote went down from 1920 on is votes for women, btw.

Of course many women had been voting in presidential elections for 30 years by then.

[minionofmidas]

Another reason why the Socialist vote went down from 1920 on is votes for women, btw.

Of course many women had been voting in presidential elections for 30 years by then.

Many? Hardly. Montana didn't have that many inhabitants.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Another reason why the Socialist vote went down from 1920 on is votes for women, btw.

Of course many women had been voting in presidential elections for 30 years by then.

Many? Hardly. Montana didn't have that many inhabitants.

One of them got to vote against both World Wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin