Poll: Presidential Election 1900

Who would you vote for if you were living in 1900? Incumbent President William McKinley, Republican or Democratic challenger William Jennings Bryan, Nebraska Representative?

President McKinley was seeking re-election and his new vice president was New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt as his previous VP Garrett Hobart died in 1899.

Bryan and Free Silver!

William Jennings Bryan also got my vote, he was a Democrat, but mainly because he was a great speaker and rising star in the party at the time.

McKinley’s done well and deserves a second term. I like his running mate, that Roosevelt fellow - smart and energetic. I think he’s got a real future in politics, despite being sidelined to the Vice Presidency if elected this time. Bryan is a bit too populist and rabble-rousing for my taste.

Since Bryan defended the Bible in the Scopes Trial. fuck him! I vote for the nearly dead McKinley.

But you wouldn’t know that if you were living in 1900, as OP specifies.

BTW, for anyone interested in a similar thread from last year, for comparison purposes.

Thanks! I tried to find that but couldn’t. I see my views haven’t changed much since last year.

If I was living at the time to vote, I would have been sent back in a time machine and I would know Bryan’s future.

The party of Lincoln all the way. I like the firebrand replacement VP pick especially. McKinley did a good job and some reforms were taking place at a reasonable rate.

Debs/Harriman all the way!

(I assume thatI’m allowed a write-in vote here.)

If I were living where I live now, Bryan, as Free Silver was a major local issue, and he won by the largest margin outside of a southern state.

If it means I were living in my home state, probably McKinley though I’m not sure why he was preferred there.

Jennings was a turn of the century populist… In other words we was a religious fanatic with no understanding of economics or morality. He destroyed the Laissez-Faire Democratic Party, making him a villain to prosperity.

McKinley was a simple crony who represented the unification of Rockefeller and Morgan interests which coalesced in opposition to the bizarre economic program of Bryan. Theodore Roosevelt was a certified maniac. He set standards for the modern executive that cripple the country to this day.

If Lincoln maimed the Republic permanently, this election put it out of its misery.

Also, McKinley’s imperial maneuvers, specifically his raping of the Philippines, set the stage for the later unnecessary conflict with the Japanese.

Basically, ‘free silver’ was a crude way of expanding the money supply. As the tale of the babysitting co-op demonstrates, in order to have an economy that functions well enough to benefit a lot of people, you need enough money to ensure that a decent quantity of transactions take place. Bryan understood this at some level, which means that he apparently had a better grasp of economics than you.

Ah yes, laissez-faire. In the eyes of its proponents, no matter how sucky an economic system it has frequently demonstrated itself to be for most people, it can never fail, it can only be failed.

Who certified him? :smiley:

Gotta admit, I’ve never heard that before. I’d say you’ve got something of a minority viewpoint about TR.

Given that the war he led resulted in its reunification, that’s a funny thing to say.

You certainly have some interesting opinions, Mr. Farnaby.

For various values of the word “interesting.”

That said, the thread addresses how people would vote in the actual election of 1900, which is not an invitation to take this thread into a hijack.

Now that we know that Mr. Farnaby would prefer to have voted for neither major party’s candidate, (a legitimate expression in this thread), any further discussion of his particular views should be taken up in a new thread.

[ /Moderating ]

Is that what it was before him?

Yes that’s rational empiricism for you. A babysitting co-op fable that has been demolished several times carries more weight than the most prosperous period in US history, namely the sound money period of the 19th century.

The babysitting fable envisions a world in which there is one good, and arbitrarily rigid prices. It is a lesson in why price-fixing does not work.

tomndeb: this is a legitimate continuation of the thread’s topic because it involves an argument in favor of the sound money policies of the Democrats before Bryan’s takeover of the party.( policies adopted by McKinley, in a reversal of the traditional Republican stance, due to political expediency) Thanks.

Largely and in general, yes. It was the most libertarian any major party has been before or since.

No party that supports slavery/the Confederacy can be classed as “libertarian.”