raystakes

[raystakes]

Failed Nominees pt.3

1912 saw the re-emboldened Theodore Roosevelt run again- but after failing the Republican nomination, he ran under the Progressive Party- an act which quite notoriously split the vote, and allowed Democrat (and famous racist) Woodrow Wilson to clinch the presidency. If things had gone differently- T.R. could have joined Cleveland in having non-consecutive terms.

An interesting example of the exact opposite phenomenon comes in the Republican Party during the presidency of FDR- in every election, from 1932 to 1944, they nominated a different nominee, each time failing before Roosevelt.

In the 1944 election, the Republicans would nominate Thomas Dewey- who would lose in the face of Roosevelt's wartime momentum. However, he would be nominated yet again in 1948 against Harry Truman (who had conventionally been seen as unpopular, but would win after a hugely popular campaign). Notably, Dewey was expected by almost everyone to win- somewhat infamously, newspapers printed front pages announcing his victory before all the votes were even in. It came as a surprise to many that Truman secured a term in his own right.

Seeming to repeat the whole thing with the 1896 and 1900 elections were the 1952 and 1956 elections- both of which saw Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower face off against Democrat Adlai Stevenson. Eisenhower's post-war popularity, having commanded the allied armies in ww2, saw him through both elections.

Somewhat infamously, the Republican nominee in 1960 was Richard Nixon. Nixon's 1960 campaign was muddy- JFK was a master campaigner, by comparison. Nixon would see the light of day, however. After a Republican loss in 1964, Nixon was back up as nominee in '68- an election he would win off of the general disunity of the Democratic Party, and the splintering of the 'Dixiecrats'- who found themselves in noted segregationist George Wallace's American Independent Party. Nixon would once again win in 1972, after his campaign had meddled in the Democrats' candidate selection process, getting them to choose relative unknown George McGovern, who was easy pickings.

Since Nixon, the closest we've come to this sort of situation happening with the Dems was with Hillary Clinton, who nearly won the Democratic nomination in 2008, and did win it in 2016. For the Republicans, Trump is a great example- He won in 2016, lost in 2020, and is seeking a win in 2024.

In today's political world, losing candidates don't get re-nominated much. It's just not how the party system works anymore. But I hope this series helped you learn at least a little about an interesting feature of American politics.

[raystakes]

Re-Nomination Pt.2

The next example comes from Martin Van Buren, who after winning in 1836 and losing in 1840, would not be nominated in 1844 (the oft-forgotten James K. Polk, who swore to serve only one term). However, upon Polk's said refusal to serve a second term, Van Buren was drafted as the 1848 nominee for the Free Soil party, a predecessor to the Republican Party whose single major issue was opposing the westward expansion of slavery. He would win a paltry 10% of the popular vote.

This next one's sort of a technicality- Millard Filmore would serve as president from 1850-53, due to the untimely death of Whig president Zachary Taylor two years into his term. While not nominated in 1852, he would be the nominee for the largely weakened Whig party (most of their liberal wing had left for the nascent Republican party, leaving them with nativists and not much else) in the 1856 election. The Whigs, once a dominant force in American politics, secured 21% of the popular vote. It's also worth mentioning that the candidacy of Filmore would act as a 'spoiler' for the Republicans' John Fremont (known today as a hugely controversial figure, being directly responsible for multiple massacres of Indigenous peoples in California during the 1840's) , allowing largely ineffective Democrat James Buchanan to secure the presidency.

Just a little fun interjection- the 1872 election was pretty interesting, as the Dems agreed to just nominate Horace Greeley, who had already been nominated by the splinter Liberal Republican party. Greeley would then die just days after the vote, meaning that even if he had won, he would have been unfit to serve (being dead).

Our next example comes with Grover Cleveland, who won the 1884 election on the Democratic ticket, then would lose in the Electoral College whilst winning the popular vote in 1888, then pull out a miracle and be re-nominated AGAIN in 1892, and win it- thus making him the only president (so far) to serve two non-consecutive terms.

1896 would see the Democrats nominate famed right-wing populist William Jennings Bryan, who would lose due to alienating mainline conservatives with his financial proposals. However, in an eerie rematch, 1900 saw both candidates be the same, with both candidates essentially re-enacting what had happened four years prior. Bryan was convincing and charismatic, but his fiscal ideas didn't catch, and he lost by almost the exact same percentage of voters. Jennings wouldn't be nominated in 1904, where fellow charismatic populist Theodore Roosevelt (Republican) would dominate the popular vote. However, come 1908, Roosevelt was no longer the nominee, and Bryan would be nominated as the Democratic choice once again- only to lose yet again. Bryan would later go on to be famous for his anti-evolution activism in the 1910's and 20's.

Whoo, this is going to need a part 3.

[raystakes]

On The Re-Nomination of a Failed Candidate

This is an interesting historical oddity- that of the re-nomination of a (in this case, presidential) nominee that had ran once, failed, but was chosen a second time by their party.

The first example (we are not going to count the messes that were created by the original loser-becomes-VP thing) is Charles Pinckney, who ran against Thomas Jefferson in 1804 as the nominee of the Federalists- and then after being slaughtered in the electoral college, was re-nominated again in 1808 just in time for a (albeit significantly less so) second ass-beating in the EC. In both elections he was crushed in the popular vote, winning a paltry 27% in 1804 and 32% in 1808.

1824's election was inconclusive, and the results were split over 4 main candidates, with 3 of the 4 (excluding William Crawford) would run again in future elections, with eventual winner in 1824 John Quincy Adams becoming eventual loser in 1828, and stubborn loser Andrew Jackson becoming stubborn winner in 1828. Henry Clay, known by his moniker "The Great Compromiser", would run again several times- we'll get back to him.

After JQA's loss in 1828, Henry Clay would win the National Republican (sometimes referred to as the Anti-Jacksonian Republicans, to differentiate them from the Republican Party of today) ticket, but would lose to Jackson, whose nativist, nationalist populism had struck a chord with the voters (white men).

After Jackson's ally and successor Martin Van Buren served one term (1836-1840), and the political establishment was shaken by the sudden death of newly-elected William Henry Harrison in 1841 and the following disputes and incivility of the presidency of John Tyler, who finished out Harrison's term, Clay was nominated once again in 1844, this time as a Whig (a party born out of a merger between the National Republicans and the Anti-Masonic Parties.) He would once again lose, albeit by an incredibly slim measure of less than 40,000 votes. Clay would die in 1852. It was the end of an era for those who had loved "The Great Compromiser"- it would become clear over the following years that there was to be no compromise on the issue of Slavery.

I'll split this into two parts.

[raystakes]

On Historical Fiction

I love history. It's literally my (aspiring) profession. So why do I generally dislike historical fiction?

Being a writer is astronomically difficult. Being a good writer is even harder. Being a correct author is nigh-impossible.

And that's the problem to me. Historical fiction asks the writer to not just have a thorough understanding of how to write an effective narrative, but to have an understanding of a historical period, one strong enough that it at least gives the veneer of accuracy. However, there will always be anachronisms. Little things that get lost, or ideas once thought correct that are later proved to be not so (especially true in ancient or medieval history), or ahistorical narrative inventions. These things massively impact my ability to enjoy historical fiction.

For every 100 pages of beautiful writing, I will latch on to the 1 or 2 inaccuracies (and that's in a particularly accurate book!). I almost wish I could remove myself from that mindset, but it's an effective tool when reading nonfiction- something I find myself doing all too often.

[raystakes]

Thoughts on Principles

It is my belief that one of the most common problems that causes significant drama, whether it be online or in friendships, is a lack of principles, whether these be ethical or political principles.

An example would be Chick-Fil-A. I am aware of the causes they fund, and that they in general have supported groups that actively seek to deny LGBTQ people respect and dignity. (To those who say they stopped, they only paused it because they got in trouble for it. They also got stealthier about it, supporting causes that don't explicitly mark themselves as anti-LGBTQ, but still do harm to queer people.) I have never, not once, purchased or eaten at Chick-Fil A. I, without question, refuse to give my money to them. I have many friends (all of which are not part of the LGBTQ community) who will justify their consumption by reasons such as that the food is really good, or that it's not that much money they spend. To me, these are the words of someone without principles. If you are going to put your own personal indulgence (the chicken is apparently good) over the rights and lives of others you claim to support, you should not claim to support those people in the first place. I would rather see the vulnerable supported then have tasty chicken.

Another great example would be the (by now long-outside of the vogue) Hogwarts game drama. Again, the lack of principle shows itself. Streamers who claim to support trans people gladly forked over money to buy the game and forked over their time and the time of their audiences to support it. Do I agree with the extreme harassment that some of these people received for playing the game? Not really. Do I think it reflects poorly on the character of said content creators, and would I stop watching their content? Yes. When a close friend of mine told me had purchased the game, I asked him why. The answer was one that I had seen online- "Harry Potter meant a lot to me as a kid, and I always wanted a game like this". To me, this is not a valid excuse. I have nostalgia for documentaries about the Titanic, but would I support a full-scale re-enactment, complete with 1500 deaths? Of course not. Again, if people are willing to put their own indulgence (this game is fun!) over the rights and lives of those they claim to support, they might as well not claim to support them in the first place. J.K. Rowling & Harry Potter is a more significant example, as buy purchasing the game, you directly support her and the causes she represents. You might as well just donate the $60 to an anti-trans fund yourself.

It's difficult to manage the feelings of frustration with others for their lack of self-awareness, as they somewhat knowingly fund causes that harm those they claim to stand behind. It's a concerning reminder that people are far more willing to compromise their values in the search for immediate comfort then we might want to believe.