The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-01-25
WAS BRYAN BADLY DEFEATED
Louisville Post, Dispatch.

The gold standard press, immedIatel,
| after the last presidential election, repeat
| eddy claimed that Mckinley had received
more than a million votes more than Bryan
| The official returns. however, having COM
| PEELED II to abandon this claim. II fell back
upon the assertion that Bryan had suffered
the worst defeat in the history OF American
Dolitics--a defeat so complete and dlsas-
trous as to preclude the hope OF future
success
brief analysis OF some Of our presi-
absurdty OF such contention; and, in or
der that our analysis may not be question
ed on the ground OF unfairness we shall
use. for the purpose of such an analysia.
the figures furnished by the Courier-Jour-
nal Almanac for 1898 ~.
According to the almanac page 442 Nc
kinley In 1896 received 7,50TS22 votes, and
Bryan 6.5ll,013 votes: which. II correct.
would give Mckinley majority over Bry-
an of 1861 votes. But the almanac has
obviously inherited its parents extraordl-
nary faculty for misstatement or its felici-
tous skill for blunderlng, and has cred
tied MCKINLEY with exactly 100000 votes
which he did not receive. And with a
close adherence to the parental character
and methods, upon an earlier page. fur
nishes the material for its own rcfutatlon;
for. on page 1863. In tabulating the popular
vote, State by State. 1t gives McKinley's
vote as 7,10I,S92 SO that McKinley's MI
iority over Bryan dwindles to i96,749.
IL VIC are permitted to draw natural
conclusions from past experiences, the as
sertion that majority OF this size de-
at oil hnn of fttft 81
defeated party. can easily be shown to
be erroneous. OF course. as the country
grows more populous, with the consequent
increase In the number OF voters, the diff
ference between the votes cast for the
successful and those cast for the uns,ic-
cessful candidate must Inevitably, unou
the average. grow greater and greater, al
though the average per cent received by
each candidate of the total vote may re-
main unchanged. For instance, where the
total vote at an election is 100, 900 a ma
toiity of 10000 Is relatively no greater that
a majority OF 100000 when the total vote is
l.0oo,0O0. and is relatively 10 greater than
majority OF 100000 where the total vote
Is lO,0o0,0OO The victory in the last case
is clearly no more decisive than the vlc-
tory In the first. Therefore, Il Is BY ratio
aud not by direct numbers that the en-
tent and character of the victory or OF q
defeat are to be determined. And tested
In this way. 1t will be found that McKin- |
ley's majority In 1896 was not far from
unusual or extraordinary. With the ex-
oeption of the wear 1896. for which inc iig- |
ures given are incomplete the Courier |
Journal Almanac supplies the material for |
such an examination from the election of
SOS to the present time.
In 1896 the total vote cast was ii 0T3- |
ESQ. or this vote Mckinley received 5049
nor cent and BRYAN 1929 Der cent.
In 1928 jackson had 641,23l votes TO 50s.-
0g7 votes for Adams. jackson receiving
55.9T per cent of the total vote and Adams
ccived 55,97 pcr cent of the total vote
md Bryan 440S, McKinley's majority over
BRYAN would have been l.GS0350. Mani
testify. therefore. Bryans defeat was MOTH
Ing like so bad as Adams.
In 1892 Jackson had 6s7,23i to 53o,1Sa for
Hay, Jackson received 5i.96 per cent of the
otal vote and Clay AZ SO per cent. Had
Mckinley in 1896 received 81 90 per cent
4 the total vote and Bryan ~ 80 per cent,
GcKinley's majority over Bryan would
AVE been i,765,412. Manhfestiy, therefore, {
3ryan's defeat was nothing like so bad as 5
Hays {
In 1910 Harrison had ,275,O17 to lbs, 7os /
-
or cent OF the total vote and Van Buren,
8 81 per cent Had Mckinley Ia 1886 re- r
eived 90. 50 per cent of the total vote and ,
iryan i6 80 per cent, Mckinleys majority :
ver Bryan would have been S53,SiS. Mani r
estly. therefore. Bryan's defeat was moth
ny like 50 bid as Van Buren's,
In 1874 Polk had 1897. 243 to 1893 06S for a
lay, Polk receiving 49, So per cent of the
otal vote and Clay 1914 per cent. Had 9
ickinley in 1896 received 40 so per cent
the total vote and Bryan +S.ii per cent.
ickinley's majority would have been
5S,iSS. Bryans defeat, therefore, was
'orse than Clay's. ID
In iSiS Taylor had 1,36o,lOl to l,22O,5li
)r Cass. Taylor receiving AZ 36 per cent :,
the total vote and Cass ~ 80 per cent. 4
lad Mckinley in 1896 received AZ sc per
ent and Bryln ~, 30 per cent. Mckinley
majority would have been 6S3, SOL l.
In 1852 Fierce had 1901 ,i1i to / 1855 CTS
lr Scott, Pierce receiving so. 30 per cent
! the total vote and Scott A 10 per cent. Is
lad Mckinley in 1896 received so. 90 per G.
emit OF the total vote and Bryan A 10
ar cent, Mckinloy's majority would have I,
cen 952.gSi "
In lSab Buchanan had ISIS. 1863 to i.3il- "
a for Fremont, Buchanan receiving 45 "A
er cent OF the total vote and Fremont SEQ q
er cent, Had Mckinley In 1896 received n,
'.si per cent of the total vote and Bryan ~ ~
',os per cent, McKinley's majority would w
ave been LEAST.
Without giving further detailed state m
ents, but proceeding according 10 The y
me method, It appears that the majority !,
1860 would have been l,4I5.l0s; in 1861. oil
isS az in 1868, 75i5i5; in 1872, 1850, ,is, d,
1876, i20,Tsl; In 1880, but slight; In
81 $500 in 1855, 1885; in 1899 m
I'D |
by averaging the results for these six co
en- presidential elections. il appears that
chinlsy ought. In order to have been as II
ecessful as the average successful cam 90
cate, to have received majority Of M
i,eH. and IL, In ascertaining the aver, n,
e, the four lowest majorltes be cx- 70
iued he ought to have received a ma
riiy Of l,l7i.l3l,
II follows, therefore. that the claims NJ
G gold standard press are gross exae- 20
rations Mckinley's victory was moi y
cal victory; It was, indeed. fur DeIow -.
Let no friend Of free silver be discour- 40.
90 py overestimatng the task which lies