Debs and Thomas: The Socialists!

[TommyC1776]

How come Debs kept doing better and better each time he ran compared with Norman Thomas, who only did the best his second time?

[Colin]

How come Debs kept doing better and better each time he ran compared with Norman Thomas, who only did the best his second time?

Debs didn't actually keep getting better. In 1908 when he ran his third time he won about .10% less than he did in 1904. While of course we only remember the breakout year of 1912, when he got 6%, the party, in 1916 and 1920, when Debs ran from jail, stayed in the upper 2% range meaning that the 6% total in 1912 was the aberration.

Norman Thomas was first hurt when he ran in the late 20's was that the Socialist was falling apart with exteremists moving to the Communist Party and the moderates leaving for the Democrats along with the general good natured feeling of the 1920's. Few people were open to Socialist ideals. In the 30's Thomas and the Socialists did do better but most of the left wing/protest/working man vote went to that other socialist in the race FDR. Thomas did alright, right at Debs average higher 2% range, in 1936 with a large pool of voters that would have supported Thomas going to FDR. He was then killed in 40, 44, and 48 because of his anti-war stance and the rise of the Soviet Union.

If a less leftist candidate than Roosevelt had been the '32 nominee, let's say on old Southern conservative like Garner, Thomas could have easily seen his vote rise to the 1912 Debs level and above.

[Dr. Cynic]

Well, Debs' vote never really increased substantially, except for his near one million vote campaign of 1920... His percentages never really got better, as Colin has pointed out.

Even still, Debs was much more of a leader than Thomas was. Although both men were towers of personal strength for thier party. Even still, when FDR hit the scene, the Socialists lost thier edge as the "liberal alternative".

[minionofmidas]

How come Debs kept doing better and better each time he ran compared with Norman Thomas, who only did the best his second time?

Debs didn't actually keep getting better. In 1908 when he ran his third time he won about .10% less than he did in 1904. While of course we only remember the breakout year of 1912, when he got 6%, the party, in 1916 and 1920, when Debs ran from jail, stayed in the upper 2% range meaning that the 6% total in 1912 was the aberration.

Debs did not run in 1916, nor was he in jail at the time. In 1920, women voted for the first time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also notice the shift in the areas of Socialist support between 1908 and the 1930s. By 1936, voting Socialist was a NYC/Milwaukee thing (and a couple of counties elsewhere, granted). Debs's support was much more evenly spread and much more westerly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Possibly. Or we might have seen some populist (Euro sense) third party arising, possibly even using the term "fascist", which actually was widely bandied about in the Midwest in 1931-2.

Roosevelt to Norman Thomas during the 32 campaign: "You might be the better journalist, but I'm a much better politician than you." [from memory, and thence probably not verbatim]

[Rob]

In the 30's Thomas and the Socialists did do better but most of the left wing/protest/working man vote went to that other socialist in the race FDR.

This is true. It's worth remembering, though, that FDR campaigned on a conservative platform- indeed, he ran against Hoover from the right. It's actually a bit of a mystery why Thomas didn't do better in 1932.

Thomas did alright, right at Debs average higher 2% range, in 1936 with a large pool of voters that would have supported Thomas going to FDR. He was then killed in 40, 44, and 48 because of his anti-war stance and the rise of the Soviet Union.

Also true. Which is unfortunate, because Thomas was a ferocious opponent of the Soviet Union (and he entered the race in 1948 only to provide a leftist alternative to Henry Wallace, whom he thought was being manipulated by the Communist Party).

[minionofmidas]

In the 30's Thomas and the Socialists did do better but most of the left wing/protest/working man vote went to that other socialist in the race FDR.

This is true. It's worth remembering, though, that FDR campaigned on a conservative platform- indeed, he ran against Hoover from the right. It's actually a bit of a mystery why Thomas didn't do better in 1932.

He ran against Hoover from all sides at once.

[Rob]

lol. Sure, he was a bit... inconsistent in the 1932 campaign, which is why Thomas would have my vote.

Of course, from 1933 on I'm a Roosevelt man.

[Dr. Cynic]

FDR actually did come at Hoover from all angles... He was a master politician, if you don't like him, you can certainly acknowledge that he was probably the best pure politician since McKinley to hold office.

Even still, Thomas was very much anti-Soviet, and he believed that the Soviet system wasn't true Socialisim.

Also, one can say for Debs, that he was benevolent. He broke from America's oldest Socialist Party (The Socialist Labor Party) because he thought DeLeonisim too harsh on the ordinary American, which is how the Socialist Party was born.

[Colin]

How come Debs kept doing better and better each time he ran compared with Norman Thomas, who only did the best his second time?

Debs didn't actually keep getting better. In 1908 when he ran his third time he won about .10% less than he did in 1904. While of course we only remember the breakout year of 1912, when he got 6%, the party, in 1916 and 1920, when Debs ran from jail, stayed in the upper 2% range meaning that the 6% total in 1912 was the aberration.

Debs did not run in 1916, nor was he in jail at the time. In 1920, women voted for the first time.

I meant 1916. It was just a typo.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also notice the shift in the areas of Socialist support between 1908 and the 1930s. By 1936, voting Socialist was a NYC/Milwaukee thing (and a couple of counties elsewhere, granted). Debs's support was much more evenly spread and much more westerly.[/quote]

That it was. The Western Socialists, who were mostly old Populists like Debs himself, left the party during the late Wilson era and then through the twenties as there lot got better. Also alot of them left due to the continually fight between Syndicalists and Evolutionary Socialists within the party. Basically between the Milwaukee-New York axis and the radicals, who were split between Rural and Urban areas in non-Socialist centres.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Possibly. Or we might have seen some populist (Euro sense) third party arising, possibly even using the term "fascist", which actually was widely bandied about in the Midwest in 1931-2.[/quote]

Quite true. Lest we forget the Union Party candidate Lemke got 3% of the vote in 1936 the highest third party showing for any candidate between LaFollette and Thurmond. That campaign was basically fascist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again quite true. Debs was actually a very good speaker, debater and overall candidate. His one weakness was that he didn't use his support and power within the party to keep the structure together in the crucial time between 1912 and 1920. Norman Thomas wasn't the politico that Debs was nor did he have the mass appeal that Debs was able to recieve.

[True Democrat]

Colin I would like to remind you that in 1932, FDR ran on a plan of smaller government, not bigger government.  I don't see how much more conservative Garner could've appeared.

[Colin]

Colin I would like to remind you that in 1932, FDR ran on a plan of smaller government, not bigger government.  I don't see how much more conservative Garner could've appeared.

And I would like to remind you of what other people in this thread have said. That Roosevelt hit Hoover from all sides, going to the left when he needed and going to the right when he needed. The man was a political chameleon during the '32 campaign and that, along with his opponent being Hoover and not someone who could actually campaign in any way coherently, led to his victory being even larger than it should have been.

[True Democrat]

Colin I would like to remind you that in 1932, FDR ran on a plan of smaller government, not bigger government.  I don't see how much more conservative Garner could've appeared.

And I would like to remind you of what other people in this thread have said. That Roosevelt hit Hoover from all sides, going to the left when he needed and going to the right when he needed. The man was a political chameleon during the '32 campaign and that, along with his opponent being Hoover and not someone who could actually campaign in any way coherently, led to his victory being even larger than it should have been.

Fair enough.  I just don't think Thomas could've achieved Debs 1912 levels of vote.

[Colin]

Colin I would like to remind you that in 1932, FDR ran on a plan of smaller government, not bigger government.  I don't see how much more conservative Garner could've appeared.

And I would like to remind you of what other people in this thread have said. That Roosevelt hit Hoover from all sides, going to the left when he needed and going to the right when he needed. The man was a political chameleon during the '32 campaign and that, along with his opponent being Hoover and not someone who could actually campaign in any way coherently, led to his victory being even larger than it should have been.

Fair enough.  I just don't think Thomas could've achieved Debs 1912 levels of vote.

Probably not. He didn't have anywhere near the personal charisma or political style of Debs.

[Dr. Cynic]

I tend to side with Colin on this one. Every Presidential campaign book I've ever read seems to have a high opinion of Debs, who was a charismatic, and strong campaigner. Also, FDR campaigned from all sides against the disorganized Hoover, who couldn't possibly have won that year anyway.
FDR said conservative things where it counted, like in the South and the lower midwest. He said liberal things in the Northeast, which was shaken of its conservative politics by the depression, and on the consistantly liberal Pacific coast.

[minionofmidas]

I tend to side with Colin on this one. Every Presidential campaign book I've ever read seems to have a high opinion of Debs, who was a charismatic, and strong campaigner.

Every Presidential campaign book you've ever read felt a need to explain to Americans immersed in antisocialist rhetoric just how come they once cast 6% of their vote for a Socialist.

[Colin]

I tend to side with Colin on this one. Every Presidential campaign book I've ever read seems to have a high opinion of Debs, who was a charismatic, and strong campaigner.

But in a way he was also limiting the party. While his presence was still so large in the party it couldn't moderate into a labour or social democratic party as other small socialist parties did in Europe. Debs, although he was a great campaigner and a benefit to the party, was too ideologically pure to fully reach out to the disgruntled and unrepresented American left and working class which, in turn, got sucked into the more moderate middle-class oriented progressive movement.

I tend to side with Colin on this one. Every Presidential campaign book I've ever read seems to have a high opinion of Debs, who was a charismatic, and strong campaigner.

Every Presidential campaign book you've ever read felt a need to explain to Americans immersed in antisocialist rhetoric just how come they once cast 6% of their vote for a Socialist.

Too true in a way.