United States presidential election, 1900

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
United States presidential election, 1900
← 1896 November 6, 1900 1904 →
All 447 electoral votes of the Electoral College
224 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 73.2%[1]
  Mckinley.jpg WilliamJBryan1902.png
Nominee William McKinley William J. Bryan
Party Republican Democratic
Home state Ohio Nebraska
Running mate Theodore Roosevelt Adlai Stevenson I
Electoral vote 292 155
States carried 28 17
Popular vote 7,228,864 6,370,932
Percentage 51.6% 45.5%
ElectoralCollege1900.svg
Presidential election results map. Blue denotes states won by Bryan/Stevenson, Red denotes those won by McKinley/Roosevelt. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state.
President before election

William McKinley
Republican

 Elected President

William McKinley
Republican

The United States presidential election of 1900 was the 29th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 6, 1900. The election was a re-match of the 1896 race between Republican candidate and incumbent President William McKinley and his Democratic challenger, William Jennings Bryan. The Republican Convention chose New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt as McKinley's running mate, since Vice-President Garret Hobart had died from heart failure in 1899. The return of economic prosperity and recent victory in the Spanish–American War for control of the Philippines helped McKinley to score a decisive victory, while Bryan's anti-imperialist stance and continued support for bimetallism attracted only limited support.

Nominations

Populist Party nomination

As the nation's largest third party, the Populists had made an organizational decision in 1896 to "fuse" with the Democratic Party on the national level - though the two parties offered different nominees for vice president. At the state level, local Populist parties were left at liberty to proceed as they saw fit. In the Plains states, the Populists fused with the Democrats, and in some states replaced them entirely. In the South, the Populists fused with the Republican Party. The end result, though Bryan was defeated, was the Populists greatly enlarged their representation in Congress from 10 to 26. In several southern states however the legislature was still controlled by the Democrats, and they began passing a series of legislation to eliminate the franchise for black voters, with the intention of undermining a significant bloc of the Populist vote. The move had its intended consequences, as in the mid-term election of 1898, Populist representation in the U.S. House fell to 9, its lowest since the party's founding.

The treatment of Populists by the Democratic Party led to a division in the Party. On May 17, 1899, Populist Party leaders met in St. Louis and issued an address calling for a "Middle of the Road" policy, in which the party would decline future fusion efforts. The statement was primarily aimed at the party's national chairman, U.S. Senator Marion Butler of North Carolina, who had been elected to the Senate through fusion with North Carolina Republicans, and was already working for the re-nomination of William J. Bryan by the Populists in 1900. The pro-fusion leaders of the Populists fought back in early 1900. The first state party known to have split was the Nebraska party, which divided during its state convention on March 19. Both factions appointed delegates to the national convention, scheduled for Cincinnati. Ultimately, the Fusion Populists decided to hold a separate national convention when it became apparent that the Ohio Populists did not favor fusion, and were working to organize a convention which would not nominate Bryan, but an independent ticket.

"Fusion" Populist Party nomination

Populist candidates:

Candidates gallery

The "Fusion" Populist National Convention assembled in a large tent just west of Sioux Falls, South Dakota on May 9, and unanimously nominated Bryan for the Presidency. Charles Towne, the leader of the Silver Republican Party, was near unanimously nominated as his running mate, facing only some weak opposition from Congressmen John Lentz of Ohio. When Adlai Stevenson won the Democratic vice presidential nomination over Charles Towne, Towne after some time withdrew from the race, with the Fusion Populists endorsing Stevenson.

"Middle of the Road" Populist Party nomination

Populist candidates:

Candidates gallery

Meeting in Cincinnati Ohio, the "Middle of the Road" faction adopted a platform that called for the creation of fiat money, government ownership of key industries, and for conservation lands to be opened for exploitation. Wharton Barker would be nominated for the Presidency, while Ignatius Donnelly would be chosen as his running-mate.

The balloting
Presidential ballot 1st 2nd Vice presidential ballot 1st
Wharton Barker 314.4 370 Ignatius L. Donnelly 715
Milford W. Howard 326.6 336
Ignatius L. Donnelly 70 7
Others 3 2

Republican Party nomination

<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>

Main article: 1900 Republican National Convention

Republican candidate:

Candidates gallery

McKinley ran on his record in 1900.

The 926 delegates to the Republican convention, which met in Philadelphia on June 19–21, renominated William McKinley by acclamation. Thomas C. Platt, the "boss" of the New York State Republican Party, did not like Theodore Roosevelt, New York's popular governor, even though he was a fellow Republican. Roosevelt's efforts to reform New York politics – including Republican politics – led Platt and other state Republican leaders to pressure President McKinley to accept Roosevelt as his new vice-presidential candidate, thus filling the spot left open when Vice-President Garret Hobart died in 1899. By electing Roosevelt to the vice-presidency, Platt would remove Roosevelt from New York state politics. Although Roosevelt was reluctant to accept the vice-presidency, which he regarded as a relatively trivial and powerless office, his great popularity among most Republican delegates led McKinley to pick him as his new running mate. Quite unexpectedly, Roosevelt would be elevated to the presidency in September 1901, when McKinley was assassinated in Buffalo, New York.

The balloting
Presidential ballot Vice presidential ballot
William McKinley 926 Theodore Roosevelt 925
Not voting 1

Democratic Party nomination

<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>

Main article: 1900 Democratic National Convention

Democratic candidates:

Candidates gallery

Error creating thumbnail: File with dimensions greater than 25 MP
Campaign poster promoting Democratic nominee William J. Bryan

After Admiral George Dewey's return from the Spanish–American War, many suggested he run for president on the Democratic ticket. However Dewey had already angered some Protestants by marrying the Catholic Mildred McLean Hazen (the widow of General William Babcock Hazen and daughter of Washington McLean, owner of The Washington Post) in November 1899 and giving her the house that the nation had given him following the war.[3] His candidacy was also almost immediately plagued by a number of public relations gaffes; newspapers started attacking him as naïve after he was quoted as saying the job of president would be easy, since the chief executive was merely following orders in executing the laws enacted by Congress, and that he would "execute the laws of Congress as faithfully as I have always executed the orders of my superiors." Shortly thereafter he admitted never having voted in a presidential election before, mentioning that the only man he would have ever voted, had he voted, would have been Grover Cleveland. He drew yet more criticism when he offhandedly (and prophetically) told a newspaper reporter that, "Our next war will be with Germany."[4]

Dewey's campaign was also met with a level of pessimism by Gold Democrats on whose support his campaign depended upon some even throwing their support to Bryan, believing him the stronger candidate.[5][6] As early as three days into his candidacy, his campaign having been damaged by the aforementioned missteps, rumors abounded regarding Dewey's impending withdrawal which proved false.[7] Further injuries however were made when it became clear that the Democratic Party leaders of Vermont were hostile to Dewey and wholly committed to Bryan.[8] Ohio similarly went for Bryan, though with the caveat there that some leaders suggested that all mention to silver in the party platform be dropped.[9] By May 5 John Roll McLean, the brother-in-law of and effective campaign manager for Dewey, defected from the campaign and was widely considered to now be silently supporting Bryan.[10] By May 17 Dewey recognized that there was very little chance for him to gather enough delegates among the Western and Southern states to possibly keep Bryan from attaining two-thirds of the delegates at the convention, publicly commenting that he no longer even knew why he had decided to run for president at all;[11] He effectively withdrew around this time. After this there was a major boom for his nomination as vice president on the ticket alongside Bryan; however Dewey resolutely refused to be considered[12][13][14]

William Jennings Bryan was faced with little real opposition after Dewey withdrew from the race. Bryan won at the 1900 Democratic National Convention held at Kansas City, Missouri, on July 4–6, garnering 936 delegate votes. Former Vice-President Adlai Stevenson was nominated for the office again, beating out David B. Hill and Charles A. Towne for the nomination.[citation needed]

Presidential ballot
William Jennings Bryan 936

Source: US President – D Convention. Our Campaigns. (March 10, 2011).

Official or speculated candidates for the vice-presidential nomination:

Vice presidential ballot
Ballot 1st before shifts 1st after shifts
Adlai E. Stevenson 559.5 936
David B. Hill 200 0
Charles A. Towne 89.5 0
Abraham W. Patrick 46 0
Julian Carr 23 0
John Walter Smith 16 0
Elliott Danforth 1 0
Jim Hogg 1 0

Minor Party nominations

Social Democratic Party nomination

Social Democratic candidates:

Candidates gallery

The election of 1900 was the first United States election featuring a socialist candidate. The Socialist Labor Party found itself divided over the Trade Union Policy as adopted at the 1896 National Convention, and by the brutal manner in which the party regulars maintained their influence. Many would leave and join with the fast-growing Social Democratic Party. At their party convention in Indianapolis Indiana, Eugene V. Debs would be nominated unanimously as their candidate for the Presidency, the first of his many runs, and nominated Job Harriman as his running mate.

Prohibition Party nomination

Prohibition candidates:

Candidates gallery

The Prohibition Party met in Chicago Illinois on June 28 to nominate their presidential ticket. Hale Johnson, who had been their vice presidential nominee in 1896, withdrew his name immediately before the balloting was to begin. John G. Woolley was nominated on the first ballot, with Henry B. Metcalf of Rhode Island nominated to be his running mate in short order.

The Balloting
Presidential Ballot 1st Vice Presidential Ballot 1st
John G. Woolley 380 Henry B. Metcalf 349
Silas C. Swallow 320 Thomas Carskadon 132
E. L. Eaton 113
Not Voting 35 141

Anti-Imperialist League nomination

League candidates:

Candidates gallery

The American Anti-Imperialist League opposed the annexation of the Philippines. It hoped to nominate a candidate who would run solely on the issue of anti-imperialism. However, the one candidate whom had shown any promise, elderly former Senator John Henderson of Missouri, refused. The Anti-Imperialist Party National Convention on August 15 divided over whether to nominate Bryan or introduce a third ticket. After a motion to nominate an Independent ticket failed, Bryan and Stevenson were declared the nominees.

National Party nomination

National Party candidates:

Candidates gallery

The National Party held its 2nd, and ultimately last, National Convention in the Carnegie Lyceum in New York City, with around 100 delegates present. The convention nominated Senator Donelson Caffery of Louisiana for president and Archibald M. Howe, an attorney from Boston Massachusetts, for vice president. However Donelson, being a staunch Democrat, refused the nomination, and Howe removed himself soon after. Edward Waldo Emerson was hurriedly nominated in Donelson's place, but would only appear on the ballot in his native Massachusetts.

Other nominations

The Union Reform Party nominated Seth H. Ellis of Ohio for President, and Samuel T. Nicholson for Vice President.

The United Christian Party nominated Jonah F.R. Leonard for President, and David H. Martin for Vice President. Initially, the party had nominated Silas C. Swallow for President and John G. Woolley for Vice President, but both men refused, choosing to instead contest the Prohibition Party nomination (of which Woolley would emerge the victor).

General election

Campaign

McKinley campaigns on gold coin (gold standard) with support from soldiers, businessmen, farmers and professionals, claiming to restore prosperity at home and victory abroad

The economy was booming in 1900, so the Republican slogan of "Four More Years of the Full Dinner Pail," combined with victory in the brief Spanish–American War in 1898, had a powerful electoral appeal. Teddy Roosevelt had become a national hero fighting in Cuba during the war, and as such he was a popular spokesman for the Republican ticket. In his speeches he repeatedly argued that the war had been just and had liberated the Cubans and Filipinos from Spanish tyranny:[41]

Four years ago the nation was uneasy because at our very doors an American island was writhing in hideous agony under a worse than medieval despotism. We had our Armenia at our threshold. The situation in Cuba had become such that we could no longer stand quiet and retain one shred of self-respect…. We drew the sword and waged the most righteous and brilliantly successful foreign war that this generation has seen.

Bryan's campaign was a reprise of his major issue from the 1896 campaign: Free Silver. It was not as successful in 1900 because prosperity had replaced severe depression and McKinley claimed credit. Advocates of enlarging the money supply to raise prices had to admit that a great deal of new gold was flowing into the world economy, and deflation (i.e. falling prices) was no longer a threat, Bryan's second major campaign theme attacked McKinley's imperialism; Bryan had supported the war but opposed the annexation of the Philippines. He said McKinley had simply replaced a cruel Spanish tyranny with a cruel American one. Bryan was especially harsh in his criticisms of the American military effort to suppress a bloody rebellion by Filipino guerillas. This theme won over some previous opponents, especially "hard money" Germans, former Gold Democrats, and anti-imperialists such as Andrew Carnegie.

Both candidates repeated their 1896 campaign techniques, with McKinley again campaigning from the front porch of his home in Canton, Ohio. At the peak of the campaign, he greeted sixteen delegations and 30,000 cheering supporters in one day. Meanwhile, Bryan took to the rails again, traveling 18,000 miles to hundreds of rallies across the Midwest and East. This time, he was matched by Theodore Roosevelt, who campaigned just as energetically in 24 states, covering 21,000 miles by train.

The German-American vote in 1900 was in doubt since they opposed both Bryan's "repudiation" policy and overseas "expansion" under McKinley.

The triumph of the American army and navy in the war against Spain was a decisive factor in building Republican support. Democrats tried to argue that the war was not over because of the insurgency in the Philippines, which became their major issue. A perception that the Philippine–American War was coming to an end would be an electoral asset for the Republicans, and the McKinley administration stated that there were reductions of troops there. Republicans pledged that the fighting in the Philippines would die down of its own accord within sixty days of McKinley's re-election.[42] However, as one lieutenant explained in a letter to his wife, "It looks good on paper, but there really has been no reduction of the force here. These battalions [being sent home] are made up on men…about to be discharged."[43]

In addition, Secretary of War Elihu Root had a report from MacArthur of September 1900 that he did not release until after the election.[44] General Arthur MacArthur, Jr. had been in command of the Philippines for four months, warning Washington that the war was not lessening and that the end was not even in sight. MacArthur believed that the guerrilla stage of the war was just beginning and that Filipinos were refining their techniques through experience. Furthermore, Philippine leader Emilio Aguinaldo's strategy had popular support. MacArthur wrote:

The success of this unique system of war depends upon almost complete unity of action of the entire native population. That such unity is a fact is too obvious to admit of discussion; how it is brought about and maintained is not so plain. Intimidation has undoubtedly accomplished much to this end, but fear as the only motive is hardly sufficient to account for the united and apparently spontaneous action of several millions of people. One traitor in each town would eventually destroy such a complex organization. It is more probable that the adhesive principle comes from ethological homogeneity, which induces men to respond for a time to the appeals of consanguineous leadership even when such action is opposed to their interests and convictions of expediency.[45]

Nonetheless, the majority of soldiers in the Philippines did not support Bryan. Any mention of the election of 1900 in the soldiers' letters and diaries indicated overwhelming support for the Republican ticket of McKinley and Roosevelt. According to Sergeant Beverly Daley, even the "howling Democrats" favored McKinley. Private Hambleton wrote, "Of course, there are some boys who think Bryan is the whole cheese, but they don't say too much."[46]

Despite Bryan's energetic efforts, the renewed prosperity under McKinley, combined with the public's approval of the Spanish–American War, allowed McKinley to gain a comfortable victory.

Results

Results by county explicitly indicating the percentage for the winning candidate. Shades of red are for McKinley (Republican), shades of blue are for Bryan (Democratic), and shades of green are for "Other(s)" (Non-Democratic/Non-Republican).[47]

It is a matter of considerable importance that Theodore Roosevelt, the vice-presidential candidate on the Republican ticket, attracted unusual attention in the campaign, and it has been commonly asserted that he brought a considerable number of votes to the Republican ticket.

McKinley polled roughly 7,200,000 votes. He carried 28 states with a combined 292 electoral votes (65.32%). He slightly increased his national percentage (51.60%) with 120,000 more votes than in 1896. This change is reflected in the gains made in number of counties carried; McKinley had 222 more counties than he had carried in 1896, thus gaining a slight majority of the total number of counties making returns in 1900.

Of the 2,729 counties making returns, McKinley won in 1,385 (50.75%) while Bryan carried 1,340 (49.10%). Two counties (0.07%) were split evenly between McKinley and Bryan, while two counties (0.07%) in Texas recorded more votes cast for "Other(s)" than either of the two-party candidates. McKinley had a majority in 1,288 counties while Bryan had a majority in 1,253 counties.

Further examination reveals that changes in counties were even more impressive. Of the 2,729 counties making returns, 2,286 were identical in these two elections; 113 changed from Republican to Democratic; and 328 changed from Democratic to Republican.

A notable feature was the Bryan gains made in the New England and (Northeastern) Mid-Atlantic sections, with also a slight gain in the East North Central section.[48] Bryan even managed to win New York City by almost 30,000 votes when he had lost it by more than 60,000 votes just 4 years earlier.[49] In all other sections, Bryan's vote was less than in 1896, and in the nation his total vote was 23,000 less than in 1896. The percentage of total was 45.52, a slight loss. Kentucky, which he carried this time, showed an increase of 17,005. In 16 states, the Democratic vote increased, but in 29 states it was less than in 1896. Bryan carried only 17 states.

Presidential candidate Party Home state Popular vote Electoral
vote		 Running mate
Count Pct Vice-presidential candidate Home state Elect. vote
William McKinley (Incumbent) Republican Ohio 7,228,864 51.64% 292 Theodore Roosevelt New York 292
William Jennings Bryan Democratic Nebraska 6,370,932 45.52% 155 Adlai E. Stevenson Illinois 155
John G. Woolley Prohibition Illinois 210,864 1.51% 0 Henry B. Metcalf Rhode Island 0
Eugene V. Debs Social Democratic Indiana 87,945 0.63% 0 Job Harriman California 0
Wharton Barker Populist Pennsylvania 50,989 0.36% 0 Ignatius L. Donnelly Minnesota 0
Joseph F. Maloney Socialist Labor Massachusetts 40,943 0.29% 0 Valentine Remmel Pennsylvania 0
Other 6,889 0.05% — Other —
Total 13,997,426 100% 447 447
Needed to win 224 224

Source (popular vote): Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Source (electoral vote): Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Popular vote
McKinley
  
 51.64%
Bryan
  
 45.52%
Woolley
  
 1.51%
Debs
  
 0.63%
Barker
  
 0.36%
Others
  
 0.34%
Electoral vote
McKinley
  
 65.32%
Bryan
  
 34.68%

  • Results by county, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote

Results by state

[50]

States won by McKinley/Roosevelt
States won by Bryan/Stevenson
William McKinley
Republican		 William Jennings Bryan
Democratic		 John Woolley
Prohibition		 Eugene V. Debs
Socialist		 Wharton Barker
Populist		 Joseph F. Maloney
Socialist Labor		 Margin State Total
State electoral
votes		 #  % electoral
votes		 #  % electoral
votes		 #  % electoral
votes		 #  % electoral
votes		 #  % electoral
votes		 #  % electoral
votes		 #  % #
Alabama 11 55,612 34.82 - 97,129 60.82 11 2,763 1.73 - - - - 4,188 2.62 - - - - -41,517 -26.00 159,692 AL
Arkansas 8 44,800 35.04 - 81,142 63.46 8 584 0.46 - - - - 972 0.76 - - - - -36,342 -28.42 127,866 AR
California 9 164,755 54.50 9 124,985 41.34 - 5,024 1.66 - - - - - - - 7,554 2.50 - 39,770 13.16 302,318 CA
Colorado 4 93,072 42.04 - 122,733 55.43 4 3,790 1.71 - 714 0.32 - 389 0.18 - 684 0.31 - -29,661 -13.40 221,408 CO
Connecticut 6 102,572 56.92 6 74,014 41.07 - 1,617 0.90 - 1,029 0.57 - - - - 908 0.50 - 28,558 15.85 180,195 CT
Delaware 3 22,535 53.67 3 18,852 44.90 - 546 1.30 - 56 0.13 - - - - - - - 3,683 8.77 41,989 DE
Florida 4 7,355 18.55 - 28,273 71.31 4 2,244 5.66 - 634 1.60 - 1,143 2.88 - - - - -20,918 -52.76 39,649 FL
Georgia 13 34,260 28.22 - 81,180 66.86 13 1,402 1.15 - - - - 4,568 3.76 - - - - -46,920 -38.65 121,410 GA
Idaho 3 27,198 46.96 - 29,414 50.79 3 857 1.48 - - - - 445 0.77 - - - - -2,216 -3.83 57,914 ID
Illinois 24 597,985 52.83 24 503,061 44.44 - 17,626 1.56 - 9,687 0.86 - 1,141 0.10 - 1,373 0.12 - 94,924 8.39 1,131,897 IL
Indiana 15 336,063 50.60 15 309,584 46.62 - 13,718 2.07 - 2,374 0.36 - 1,438 0.22 - 663 0.10 - 26,479 3.99 664,094 IN
Iowa 13 307,808 58.04 13 209,265 39.46 - 9,502 1.79 - 2,742 0.52 - 613 0.12 - 259 0.05 - 98,543 18.58 530,355 IA
Kansas 10 185,955 52.56 10 162,601 45.96 - 3,605 1.02 - 1,605 0.45 - - - - - - - 23,354 6.60 353,766 KS
Kentucky 13 227,132 48.51 - 235,126 50.21 13 2,890 0.62 - 766 0.16 - 1,961 0.42 - 390 0.08 - -7,994 -1.71 468,265 KY
Louisiana 8 14,234 20.96 - 53,668 79.03 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - -39,434 -58.07 67,906 LA
Maine 6 65,412 61.89 6 36,822 34.84 - 2,581 2.44 - 878 0.83 - - - - - - - 28,590 27.05 105,693 ME
Maryland 8 136,185 51.50 8 122,238 46.23 - 4,574 1.73 - 904 0.34 - - - - 388 0.15 - 13,947 5.27 264,434 MD
Massachusetts 15 238,866 57.59 15 156,997 37.85 - 6,202 1.50 - 9,607 2.32 - - - - 2,599 0.63 - 81,869 19.74 414,804 MA
Michigan 14 316,269 58.10 14 211,685 38.89 - 11,859 2.18 - 2,826 0.52 - 903 0.17 - 837 0.15 - 104,584 19.21 544,379 MI
Minnesota 9 190,461 60.21 9 112,901 35.69 - 8,555 2.70 - 3,065 0.97 - - - - 1,329 0.42 - 77,560 24.52 316,311 MN
Mississippi 9 5,707 9.66 - 51,706 87.56 9 - - - - - - 1,642 2.78 - - - - -45,999 -77.89 59,055 MS
Missouri 17 314,092 45.94 - 351,922 51.48 17 5,965 0.87 - 6,139 0.90 - 4,244 0.62 - 1,294 0.19 - -37,830 -5.53 683,656 MO
Montana 3 25,409 39.79 - 37,311 58.43 3 306 0.48 - 711 1.11 - - - - 119 0.19 - -11,902 -18.64 63,856 MT
Nebraska 8 121,835 50.46 8 114,013 47.22 - 3,655 1.51 - 823 0.34 - 1,104 0.46 - - - - 7,822 3.24 241,430 NE
Nevada 3 3,849 37.75 - 6,347 62.25 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - -2,498 -24.50 10,196 NV
New Hampshire 4 54,799 59.33 4 35,489 38.42 - 1,270 1.37 - 790 0.86 - - - - - - - 19,310 20.91 92,364 NH
New Jersey 10 221,707 55.28 10 164,808 41.09 - 7,183 1.79 - 4,609 1.15 - 669 0.17 - 2,074 0.52 - 56,899 14.19 401,050 NJ
New York 36 822,013 53.10 36 678,462 43.83 - 22,077 1.43 - 12,869 0.83 - - - - 12,621 0.82 - 143,551 9.27 1,548,042 NY
North Carolina 11 132,997 45.47 - 157,733 53.92 11 990 0.34 - - - - 798 0.27 - - - - -24,736 -8.46 292,518 NC
North Dakota 3 35,898 62.12 3 20,531 35.53 - 2,536 3.01 - 1,494 1.77 - 275 0.33 - - - - 13,141 15.60 84,216 ND
Ohio 23 543,918 52.30 23 474,882 45.66 - 10,203 0.98 - 4,847 0.47 - 251 0.02 - 1,688 0.16 - 69,036 6.64 1,040,073 OH
Oregon 4 46,172 55.46 4 32,810 39.41 - 2,536 3.05 - 1,464 1.76 - 269 0.32 - - - - 13,362 16.05 83,251 OR
Pennsylvania 32 712,665 60.74 32 424,232 36.16 - 27,908 2.38 - 4,831 0.41 - 638 0.05 - 2,936 0.25 - 288,433 24.58 1,173,210 PA
Rhode Island 4 33,784 59.74 4 19,812 35.04 - 1,529 2.70 - - - - - - - 1,423 2.52 - 13,972 24.71 56,548 RI
South Carolina 9 3,579 7.04 - 47,233 92.96 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - -43,654 -85.91 50,812 SC
South Dakota 4 54,530 56.73 4 39,544 41.14 - 1,542 1.60 - 169 0.18 - 339 0.35 - - - - 14,986 15.59 96,124 SD
Tennessee 12 123,108 44.95 - 145,240 53.03 12 3,844 1.40 - 346 0.13 - 1,322 0.48 - - - - -22,132 -8.08 273,860 TN
Texas 15 130,641 30.83 - 267,432 63.12 15 2,644 0.62 - 1,846 0.44 - 20,981 4.95 - 162 0.04 - -136,791 -32.28 423,706 TX
Utah 3 47,139 50.58 3 45,006 48.30 - 209 0.22 - 720 0.77 - - - - 106 0.11 - 2,133 2.29 93,189 UT
Vermont 4 42,569 75.73 4 12,849 22.86 - 383 0.68 - 39 0.07 - 367 0.65 - - - - 29,720 52.87 56,212 VT
Virginia 12 115,769 43.82 - 146,079 55.29 12 2,130 0.81 - - - - 63 0.02 - 167 0.06 - -30,310 -11.47 264,208 VA
Washington 4 57,456 53.44 4 44,833 41.70 - 2,363 2.20 - 2,006 1.87 - - - - 866 0.81 - 12,623 11.74 107,524 WA
West Virginia 6 119,829 54.27 6 98,807 44.75 - 1,628 0.74 - 286 0.13 - 246 0.11 - - - - 21,022 9.52 220,796 WV
Wisconsin 12 265,760 60.06 12 159,163 35.97 - 10,027 2.27 - 7,048 1.59 - - - - 503 0.11 - 106,597 24.09 442,501 WI
Wyoming 3 14,482 58.66 3 10,164 41.17 - - - - 21 0.09 - 20 0.08 - - - - 4,318 17.49 24,687 WY
TOTALS: 447 7,228,864 51.64 292 6,370,932 45.52 155 210,867 1.51 - 87,945 0.63 - 50,989 0.36 - 40,943 0.29 - 857,932 6.13 13,997,429 US

Close states

Margin of victory less than 5% (42 electoral votes):

  1. Kentucky, 1.71%
  2. Utah, 2.29%
  3. Nebraska, 3.24%
  4. Idaho, 3.83%
  5. Indiana, 3.99%

Margin of victory between 5% and 10% (150 electoral votes):

  1. Maryland, 5.27%
  2. Missouri, 5.53%
  3. Kansas, 6.60%
  4. Ohio, 6.64%
  5. Tennessee, 8.08%
  6. Illinois, 8.39%
  7. North Carolina, 8.46%
  8. Delaware, 8.77%
  9. New York, 9.27%
  10. West Virginia, 9.52%

Geography of Results

Cartographic Gallery

  • Map of presidential election results by county

  • Map of Republican presidential election results by county

  • Map of Democratic presidential election results by county

  • Map of "other" presidential election results by county

  • CartogramPresidentialCounty1900Colorbrewer.gif

    Cartogram of presidential election results by county

  • CartogramRepublicanPresidentialCounty1900.gif

    Cartogram of Republican presidential election results by county

  • CartogramDemocraticPresidentialCounty1900.gif

    Cartogram of Democratic presidential election results by county

  • CartogramOtherPresidentialCounty1900.gif

    Cartogram of "other" presidential election results by county

Statistics

Counties with highest percent of vote (Republican)

  1. Keweenaw County, Michigan 92.24%
  2. Leslie County, Kentucky 91.23%
  3. Unicoi County, Tennessee 89.64%
  4. Scott County, Tennessee 89.59%
  5. Johnson County, Tennessee 89.20%

Counties with highest percent of vote (Democratic)

  1. Irion County, Texas 100.00%
  2. Hampton County, South Carolina 99.89%
  3. Greenwood County, South Carolina 99.73%
  4. Saluda County, South Carolina 99.45%
  5. Abbeville County, South Carolina 99.42%

Counties with highest percent of vote (Other)

  1. Carson County, Texas 78.71%
  2. Chambers County, Texas 44.50%
  3. Comanche County, Texas 32.82%
  4. Franklin County, Georgia 30.92%
  5. Scurry County, Texas 28.69%

Counties with lowest percent of vote (Republican)

  1. Randall County, Texas 00.00%
  2. Irion County, Texas 00.00%
  3. Hampton County, South Carolina 00.11%
  4. Greenwood County, South Carolina 00.27%
  5. Dooly County, Georgia 00.35%

Counties with lowest percent of vote (Democratic)

  1. Keweenaw County, Michigan 06.33%
  2. Unicoi County, Tennessee 08.29%
  3. Leslie County, Kentucky 08.46%
  4. Scott County, Tennessee 10.23%
  5. Johnson County, Tennessee 10.42%

Counties with most votes (Republican)

  1. Cook County, Illinois 203,760
  2. Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania 173,657
  3. New York County, New York 153,001
  4. Kings County, New York 108,977
  5. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 71,780

Counties with most votes (Democratic)

  1. Cook County, Illinois 186,193
  2. New York County, New York 181,786
  3. Kings County, New York 106,232
  4. Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania 58,179
  5. Suffolk County, Massachusetts 47,534

Counties with most votes (Other)

  1. New York County, New York 11,700
  2. Cook County, Illinois 10,242
  3. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin 5,857
  4. Kings County, New York 4,639
  5. Essex County, Massachusetts 4,242

Counties with lowest percent of vote and win (Republican)

  1. Cherokee County, Alabama 41.94%
  2. Paulding County, Georgia 46.00%
  3. Logan County, Colorado 46.59%
  4. Chattahoochee County, Georgia 47.18%
  5. Otter Tail County, Minnesota 47.19%

Counties with lowest percent of vote and win (Democratic)

  1. Murray County, Georgia 45.18%
  2. Geneva County, Alabama 46.48%
  3. Douglas County, Georgia 46.75%
  4. Linn County, Oregon 46.77%
  5. Fresno County, California 47.41%

See also

References

  1. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  3. ↑ HarpWeek | Elections | 1900 Medium Cartoons at elections.harpweek.com
  4. ↑ Convention Diary: NRO Total Convention at www.nationalreview.com
  5. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  6. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  7. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  8. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  9. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  10. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  11. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  15. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  16. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  17. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  18. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  19. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  20. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  21. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  22. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  23. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  24. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  25. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  26. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  27. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  28. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  29. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  30. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  31. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  32. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  34. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  35. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  36. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  37. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  38. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  39. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  40. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  41. ↑ [Brands 1997: 400]
  42. ↑ [Miller 1982: 143]; Detroit Evening News, September 7, 1900; San Francisco Call, September 8, 21, 1900; Boston Evening Transcript, September 20, 1900
  43. ↑ [Miller 1982: 148]; Lt. Samuel Powell Lyon to his wife, April 12, 1900, Carlisle Collection
  44. ↑ [Miller 1982: 143, 148]
  45. ↑ [Miller 1982: 150–151]; Literary Digest 21 (1900): 605–606
  46. ↑ [Miller 1982: 187]; Letters of Sergeant Beverly Daley, November 16, 1900, Private Hambleton, March 4, 1900.
  47. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  48. ↑ The Presidential Vote, 1896–1932, Edgar E. Robinson, pg. 9
  49. ↑ The Presidential Vote, 1896–1932, Edgar E. Robinson, pg. 37
  50. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Bibliography

Secondary sources

  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Primary sources

  • Bryan, William Jennings. "The Election of 1900," pp. 788–801 Bryan gives his analysis of why he lost
  • Stevenson, Adlai E., et al. "Bryan or McKinley? The Present Duty of American Citizens," The North American Review Vol. 171, No. 527 (Oct. 1900), pp. 433–516 in JSTOR political statements by politicians on all sides, including Adlai E. Stevenson, B. R. Tillman, Edward M. Shepard, Richard Croker, Erving Winslow, Charles Emory Smith, G. F. Hoar, T. C. Platt, W. M. Stewart, Andrew Carnegie, and James H. Eckels

External links

Navigation

Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_1900&oldid=26949"