This is just a place where I want to share some of my favorite presidential elections. I always find myself going back to read about them because they are so interesting and impactful.
I find this one interesting because it kind of bucks the trend that was started with the election of 1800. In discussions of the First Party System, most people seem to think that the federalists completely faded away after John Adams's loss in 1800. However, in this election, even though they didn't win, the federalists made up a lot of ground to become in contention for the presidency again. This comeback was also seen in the congressional elections of 1812. After the Hartford Convention, the Federalist Party collapsed, but I think this election serves as an important reminder that political fortunes can always change.
This election is interesting because it shows the importance of consistent messaging towards winning elections. Oftentimes, the force with which a candidate expresses their views is more important to voters than the views they are expressing. 1844 offers a textbook example of this phenomenon. After John Tyler's moderate and independent presidency, Henry Clay and James K. Polk (the Whig and Democratic candidates, respectively) both cast themselves as constituting a full embrace of their respective parties' ideals. However, Clay was, like the party he represented, deeply conflicted over the annexation of Texas, which Tyler was actively pursuing. Clay made several attempts to explain his full thoughts on the issue, but Polk effectively cast Clay as "waffling" while he spoke consistently in favor of annexation. In the end, Clay's indecisiveness is seen as a major factor in his narrow loss that year.
Everyone knows that this election was a big deal; it initiated the Fourth Party System after all. The thing I find most interesting about 1896 is that it may be the purest manifestation of class conflict in the United States. The entire nascent progressive movement put its weight behind the star from Nebraska, William Jennings Bryan, while the entire business sector put its weight behind William McKinley. In the end, McKinley won, but I would argue that the unification of the left that Bryan encapsulated would set the stage for the end of the Gilded Era and the liberalism of the Progressive Era and New Deal.
This election is, rightfully, seen as one of the most interesting in American History. Four candidates won above 5% of the vote, and three even won electoral college votes. However, what I find interesting about this election is that, despite the wide array of choices voters had before them, ideologically, they were all very similar. Wilson, Roosevelt, and Taft (the Democratic, Republican, and Progressive candidates, respectively) all styled themselves as progressives, and their disagreements were mainly over the effectiveness of proposed reforms, not the ideas behind them. Even Debs, the Socialist candidate viewed Roosevelt as stealing his populist rhetoric to trick voters into reforming, rather than destroying, the Capitalist system. The main takeaway from this similarity is that successful parties know which way the wind blows: they must mold their initiatives and rhetoric to match the popular views of the time, else they die. Such was the fate of Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party.
This election is most remembered for its turbulent campaign, and it was, indeed, a gripping one. With political assassinations, fervant protests, rising crime, and just an overall atmosphere of bitterness and skepticism, its discord represented the apotheosis of the turbulence of the 60s. However, the aspect of this election that I find most intersting is Hubert Humphrey's poltical comeback. On paper, reading through the environment going into the election, it seems like he was dealt an unwinnable hand. An unpopular president, racial discontent, a civil war in his own party -- Humphrey was never going to win. However, by turning out his core base of laborers and minorities, he brought the party within 3 states of winning.