• nyctre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Uuuh, splitting hairs on my choice of words. The republican party split into two and so did the votes. The fact that I said “stole” wasn’t part of the point. And ofc you’re gonna say it’s impossible to know…

    It’s just a coincidence that in 1908 it was 6.4m vs 7.7m votes (dems and republicans respectively) and in 1912 it was 6.3m vs 3.5m + 4.1m (Dems vs republicans and progressives respectively)

    Yeah, the numbers stayed more or less the same except the republican vote got split. But yeah, that’s just a coincidence, we have no way of knowing!

    • OBJECTION!
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      splitting hairs on my choice of words

      If I don’t keep y’all honest on terminology, you’ll say all kinds of ridiculous nonsense to make my side look bad, whether it’s “stealing votes” or “helping the other side.”

      It’s just a coincidence that in 1908 it was 6.4m vs 7.7m votes (dems and republicans respectively) and in 1912 it was 6.3m vs 3.5m + 4.1m (Dems vs republicans and progressives respectively)

      And in 1916, when there were only two major candidates, it was 9.1m democrat vs 8.5m republican.

      • nyctre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Exactly, thank you! People went back to voting republican again since there was no Roosevelt to split the vote! Now you’re getting it!

        • OBJECTION!
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          And lost. Because the electorate was shifting between 1908 and 1916, so there’s no reason to think that the results of 1912 would’ve been the same as 1908.