Voting for William McKinley even if I disagree with the annexation of the Philippines due to Bryan’s free silver stance.
. . . 
How did the annexation of the Philippines result from Bryan’s Free Silver stance?
I think he’s missing some punctuation.
Voting for William McKinley (even if I disagree with the annexation of the Philippines) due to Bryan’s free silver stance.
I vote for McKinley 
Are we voting given what we know now or what we think we might have known then? Because the term “Macroeconomics” had not even been invented yet and there existed no general theory of whole economies. Heck, supply and demand curves were only introduced around 1890.
Had I been around then, I probably would have voted for McKinley. At the time (before the Great Flip of the 1960s) the Republican Party was the more tolerant party regarding race. I would have opposed the Phillipine annexation so I’d have held my nose. Maybe I would have been thinking “Boy, I hope McKinley doesn’t get shot and that hot dog Teddy Roosevelt gets in the White House”.
I dunno, McKinley’s imperialism bothers me. I might have to wait and see the televised debates. Or read up more on McKinley and Bryan in Wikipedia before I vote.
Only on this board would Debs pull ahead of McKinley.
Is there some special objection to using silver to expand the money supply or is it just the expansion that is the problem?
I find it funny no one is voting for Bryan.
I’m not opposed to Bryan himself, but we’ve had a good four years with McKinley, and the United States, no longer a second rate power, has taken its rightful place among the imperial nations of the world, and we enjoy prosperity as a result.
I’ve heard tell that Nefarious Persons may attempt to murder President McKinley. I say in all seriousness that McKinley shall have neither my vote nor my lapel for his button unless he promises to be shot and to allow that promising young Roosevelt to take office.
McKinley protects the cartels, while Mr. Bryan promises to break them up. I say that no man, nor any business, should enjoy the influence that these Rockefellers and Carnegies wield. I’ve not heard that Mr. Bryan is any more or less hostile to the Negro than any other man of this day. His position on evolution is troubling, but surely will not affect his works as President.
ETA: Well, I didn’t see those results coming.
There’s a chance I might have voted for Bryan, if not for 1) the Democrats’ “Southern strategy” of alliance with racist Jim Crow forces, and 2) Bryan’s completely backward anti-evolution crusade. So, actually, there’s really no chance I’d vote for Bryan. I might have gone for the Populist party, except that Donnelly’s moonbatty Atlantis woo-woo is obviously a deal-breaker. Anyway, Debs is essentially where it’s at for me.
Perhaps because everyone associates him with the Monkey Trial.
Couple things. First, the Democrats don’t really have a southern strategy at this point. They don’t need one. The old South is pretty solidly democratic.the racism in the party isn’t a strategic attempt to get southern votes. It’s real and represents the view of a large portion of the Democratic base. Besides, the only overtly racist plank in the 1900 platform is Chinese exclusion… Second, Bryan won’t start any antievolution crusades for another twenty years, after he reads Kellogg’s book and becomes convinced Social Darwinism is responsible for militarism and racism.
Yes, I know. sigh Only on this board.
That’s why I asked upthread whether I was voting c.1900 or c.2014. In 1900 I’m not sure the phrase, “Money supply” even existed. It was “Hard money” or “Soft money”, IIRC.
Usually, party platforms contain points that refer to contemporary political debates or points of distinction. By 1900, segregation was firmly entrenched, African-Americans rarely voted in the south (and the Great Migration had yet to begin) and the Republicans had long since abandoned a strong promotion of racial equality.
Exactly.black civil rights was no longer a particularly controversial topic in 1900. There was a kind of general political understanding (at least among American whites) that the races were unequal and should be treated unequally.
I shall watch the American election with interest in my English papers. Not being a US citizen myself, I look forward to voting for Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman’s Liberals at the next election, whenever that may be.
With the lens of history, I probably would have voted for McKinley. I’m not even so upset about the Philippine thing.
Without the lens of history, I’d probably vote for Bryan. He seem the politician most concerned with helping the little guy, without being cuckoo-bananas.