• @nyctre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    14 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
      014 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
        113 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
          -113 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.