Could The Election of 2012 Mirror The Election of 1912...

[Libertas1776]

Bear with me...Does anyone think it possible that the Election of 2012 could possibly mirror the Election of 1912. For those unaware of 1912, I'll give a quick background. In '12, the Republican vote was split between Progressive Party (Bull-Moose) Candidate, former President Teddy Roosevelt and incumbent President William H. Taft. Taft was supported by the conservative wing of the party while Roosevelt was supported by a fringe of Progressive Republicans (a group that has long since gone the way of the Dodo) Taft was your traditional Republican, ol' pal of big business and Wall Street, while


Roosevelt and his party were against child labor, supported minimum wage laws, woman's rights, labor unions, ecological conservation, and even strong social security nets, including health insurance for all. He was also highly in favor of a strong Federal Government that had the power to adequately regulate big business. History books often refer to Roosevelt as a "trust-buster" when in reality he was more of a "trust-regulator." He believed in a strong government that would regulate and keep in line Wall Street and big business in order to protect the Working and Middle classes of America. Granted, Roosevelt was not perfect,for if I am not mistaken, he still favored a big military, new battleships and destroyers etc. something to be expected from the quintessential imperialistic, everything is bully, gung ho Roosevelt. Regardless, compared to the Presidents we have had since (Save his cousin Franklin) none have ever come close to the positions taken in the 1912 Election by this former Republican President.
More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1912

For those that don't already know, Taft lost to Democratic challenger Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt's splintering of the national party really hindered if not completely disabled Taft's campaign, allowing for a sweeping victory by the Democrats. It also brought the end to an era of mustachioed presidents, but that's a whole 'nother discussion for another time.

My question is, could something similar happen to the Democrats in 2012? Could the "progressive" wing of the party rally around a charismatic "Bull-Moose" instead of the incumbent Barack Obama, splitting the party vote allowing for a victory of the Republicans, in the same way the Democrats won nearly a century ago? I would hope such a nightmarish scenario (a Republican return to power) will never come to pass. It seems unlikely to happen, given the fact that their isn't really a viable third party "Bull-Moose" to rally around. Although there always is Howard Dean, maybe.
Who knows? :shrug:
Any thoughts or opinions any one has one this unlikely yet still plausible scenario would greatly be appreciated. Got criticisms, well then lay into me. I would really like to hear others opinions on this subject matter.

(It's rather funny, much of the positions taken by Roosevelt would probably be labeled "socialist" by today's Republican Party, when in 1912 it was probably more middle of the road to left of center at best. In 1912, the party that would have been labeled socialist would have been just that,

the Socialist Party which ran Eugene Debs as a candidate during the election. Roosevelt on the other hand was a capitalist, who believed in real capitalism where there was such a thing as competition. He also believed in social justice, the working man, and protecting the environment, unlike today's Republicans who believe in welfare for corporations, not people, as well as virtually no regulation to protect competition. Nor do they believe in protecting this country's great natural beauty or providing for the common welfare of the people)

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Change 'could' for 'will'....

...and you've got the future right here:

Could the "progressive" wing of the party rally around a charismatic "Bull-Moose" instead of the incumbent Barack Obama, splitting the party vote allowing for a victory of the Republicans, in the same way the Democrats won nearly a century ago?

I fully expect this to happen. 9-12% of the popular vote will go off chasing unicorns, tip half-a-dozen states red that were purple in '08, and a Republican will get in with a Clintonesque plurality. Dems hold Congress, though.

Granted, the unicorn-hunters will have the satisfaction of being right. And clean. And better than the rest of us. But isn't that what politics is about, feeling good?

[mitchtv]

2. Taft didn't deserve to win.....

Catered to big business. Lost the independents. OH well. Dems should think twice before surrendering

[polichick]

3. This progressive, who worked for both Dean and Obama, would be tempted...

...to support a challenge by Dean in 2012 if Obama doesn't remember who elected him by them ~ but I'd hate to see the vote split and Republicans back in the WH. Better to have a full-throated "throw the bum out" movement than a split.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. I can't wait to see the October 2015 session of the Supreme Court.

Or what goodies the contents of the Environment and Labor sections of the Federal Register contain then.

The executive is never not worth holding, regardless of how imperfect the holder, not under the US system.

[happyslug]

6. I agree, but the real test is 2010 NOT 2012

In the 2010 election, 1/3 of the Senate and ALL of the house is up for re-election. No National Health Insurance and I would vote for an independent Candidate for National Health insurance even if the means a Republican wins the house seat. This is the worse fears of the Democratic leadership, but I fear it less then NOT having National Health Insurance. If the Democrats loss the House and Senate in 2010 you still have Obama for the 2012 election. Most of the worse aspects of GOP rule would be minimized by Obama (Or we will see Obama more a republican then we take him to be today). Either way the Democrats will have to address the issue of National Health Insurance in 2012 IF they expect to win in 2012. Thus the best thing for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to do is to support a third party just to force the rest of the Democratic Party to the left.

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. If the Democrats lose both Houses in 2010...

...Jesus Christ Himself running as a Democrat couldn't hold the White House in 2012.

Thus the best thing for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to do is to support a third party just to force the rest of the Democratic Party to the left.

Clinton lost his majorities in both Houses in '94, and he didn't move leftward an inch.

[happyslug]

8. The Country was different in 1994 and 1996 and today.

In 1994 the country was still in a Conservative tendency. Bush Sr lost to Clinton in 1992 but that was do to the bad economy then any shift to the left.

That is NOT the case today, the country has moved to the left over the last 9 years, especially on economic issues. Thus the left has more power today then it had in 1994.

[CKennedy16]

16. This country is only somewhere different from 1994 to today

Well, this country shifted enough to the left to get Obama in, yes... but McSame and Caribou Barbie still managed to get over 45% of the vote. Unbelievable that there are still that many wingdoodles out there.

[Kaleva]

5. No chance at all unless...

Tfat, Nosliw, and Tlevesoor are all running in 2012.

[Libertas1776]

9. There's no denying we'll be in for

one hell of an election season, in both '10 and '12. The Dems better shape up or what happened during the election of 1912 isn't going to feel like 100 years ago.

[XemaSab]

10. There's no way Dean would run against Obama

I don't know who else could motivate the democrats to ditch Obama in that fashion. :shrug:

[Libertas1776]

11. I agree

I just pitched Dean out there as a real random hypothetical. I really can't think of any "bull mooses" that are viable national candidates but a lot can happen between now and 2012. Who the hell really knows?

[hootinholler]

13. I think no public or a weak public option would put him over the top.

I don't see Dean running as a non-democrat, but he has been marginalized both as party chair and since the election.

If something pissed him off that badly I and a lot of others would support him wholeheartedly.

-Hoot

[Justitia]

15. Anyone who knows Dean, knows that's silly. He would never primary challenge the president.

Howard Dean is the best of the best. He has the best intentions for all of us, he's a true blue Dem.

He is a strong supporter of the president, since Day 1.

And he will remain so.

[ruggerson]

12. Interesting idea

I think it's almost impossible, in today's environment, for anyone to run a serious, credible third party campaign. Perot did it, but it was a candidacy based. pretty much on one issue, he was a minor celebrity businessman, and it was self funded.

Beyond that, for me, the analogy for Obama is Woodrow Wilson. Obama is a "co-opting" President (takes ideas from the opposing team, seeks consensus with political enemies) rather than a strong, liberal partisan. He is modeling Wilson, Nixon and Clinton.

These types of Presidents are usually cautious, succeed in implementing only incremental change, and are usually overwhelmingly reelected.

[hootinholler]

14. I've had similar ideas unning around the noggin.

Mostly with Jesse Ventura as the Bull Moose.

-Hoot