There have been many instances in which there have been two candidates that split the votes of their party, leading to the loss of both candidates. The specific case that we just covered in class was between Taft and Roosevelt. These two were both in the republican party, but they greatly differed in opinion and personality. While Roosevelt was very outgoing and progressive, Taft was somewhat introverted and kept his ideas close to his chest. Taft worked with big businesses, and Roosevelt worked in defiance of them. The aforementioned differences and more drove a wedge between not only Taft and Roosevelt themselves, but also the conservative and progressive republican party. This split led to a democratic win for Woodrow Wilson.
Something similar happened in 2016 with the presidential election, and democratic election that preceded it. There was a lot of support thrown at Bernie Sanders, and when he lost the presidential candidacy, a lot of democrats refused to support Hillary Clinton, the new democratic candidate. This led to many people either choosing not to vote, or voting for third-party candidates that, frankly, had no chance of winning. What would have happened had Bernie Sanders won the democratic candidacy? Would Clinton supporters have done the same as many Sanders supporters did? Would Trump still have won the presidency?
I agree, when people with similar campaign ideas run in the same election, they do split the vote of that particular party and the people that agree with their ideas. A lot of people were Bernie or bust and a lot of people were Hillary or bust. When Hilary was elected for the primaries, a lot of Bernie supporters did not vote in the final election, harming both of their causes, causing our current president to become elected. I also wonder if Hillary supporters would have voted for Bernie if Bernie had won. Both candidates believed in similar things so there should be no reason not to.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good connection to make and I find it interesting that in both cases, even though the majority of the American population might have had views that favored certain types of government and policy, they evidently didn't get represented because of this internal strife. It seems evident retrospectively that a candidates should throw support behind their competitor to promote a better general victory, or voters to realize this phenomenon. As usual, it looks like we still have not learned from history. Your closing questions might be countered with how would history have been different if Roosevelt or Taft had been the president instead of Wilson in such a crucial moment of American history? **
ReplyDelete