Omaha daily bee., 1884-05-27
Some Signinc. mt Figures.
Louis Giobe Democrat.

st. Louis Globe Democrat.
In estimating the chances of Republican
success this year, and discussing the
doubtful phases of the situation, it should
be borne steadily in view that the veto
ry of 1880 was won only through very
strenuous endeavor and by u very small
margin. We can not hope to have things
any easier this time; on the contrary, the
indications are that the shedding will be
in some respects considerably harder.
There were some advantages on the Re-
publican side in that contest which are
hardly to be expected in the impending
struggle, and certain influences which
then operated to determine the course
of a good many wavering voters r not
now to be so much counted upon;
aud yet with such special aids to sue
cess, WI missed defeat so narrowly that
there was not much room for loud
Boosting.
The election of Garfield was a plurali-
ty triumph. While he secured 214 of
the 1863 electoral votes, he did not re-
ceive a majority of the p pular vote by
over 800 100. That is to say, his vote
fell hat much short of the combined
vote cast for the other candidates; and
even Hancock came within 1000 of re-
ceiying as many votes as he did. There
were III round numbers 8 600 600 votes
polled, and Garfield got As 26 per cent
of them, against 48 90 per cent given to
Hancock, the remainder going to Weaver,
DOW and Taylor, the candidates of the
G~reenbacs, Prohibition and Anti-Secret
Society factions. On a square test,
therefore, between the Republican party
and all opposing parties, the opposition
had a ms jrity. Possibly if only a Re
publican and a Democrat candidate had
been III the field, the former would have
received a majority; but that is merely
conjecture. AS q matter of fact, the
election of 80 did not show a preponder-
ance OF Republican votes in the country.
If we take the votes by States, which
Is he true test, 1t will be seen that in a
number of instances the result was de
cldsd by a remarkably close count. In
NO former election We're 30 many States
carried or lost on such narrow margins,
q irteld beat Hancock in New York by
a plurality of 81 900, but his majority IN
the state over all opposing candidates was
only 5000. This gave him thirty five
ELECTORAL votes and insured his election,
for If those votes had gone to Hancock
they would have given us a democratic
president. In Ohio Garfield received a
plurality of "a, 900, and a majority over
all of 20, 600 Indiana ave Garfield a
plurality OF 5000, but the majority of
the total popular vote was 5000 against
him. The Republicans got Oregon by a
slender plurality, GIL, aud a majority of
422; and Colorado aud Connsctic were
both secured by pluralities of less than
5000.
The states named, all of which are put
in the doubtful list this year, and sever
al OF which are essential to republican sue
cess, cast 81 electoral votes in 1880, or
nearly two.bfths of the whole number
which Garfield received. There was a
difference of only 80 between the electo.
raj votes CASTOR G ,rheld and those CASTOR
Hancock; and a change of only 80 of the
III vot.s IN question would therefore
have elected the latter instead of the
f~ormer-and such a change would have
been accomplished by the shifting of less
than ] per cent Of the popular vote in
New York alone from the republican to
the democratic ticket. A loss OF $3.50
republican votes in a total of 4,449 600
would have defeated Garfield. A fact
like that Is worth considering very seri-
nusly at this time. LII the republican
arty isto triumph again this year, it
must clearly put its best foot foremost,
and exercise thu strictest %caurion, and
resoln'ely refuse to take any hazard that
can be avoided
: 1t Is for the Chicago Convention in
particular to taxa note of this aspect of
the situation. Almost egeryth NJ de-
ponds upon the sort 0. which