Talk:1916 United States presidential election

message: I am confused with the map. In the map, the Republican states are colored blue and the Democratic red. I thought that the Republican color was red and the Democrat blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.239.3.65 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no formal rule as to which color is which.  The network rule, apparently, has been to switch it off, so one time the incumbent party is blue and the challenger red, and the next time it's reversed.  john k 01:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: lets switch it back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallicfan20 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is what i have agreed on  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.134.157 (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral map colors 

message: Democrat Hancock carried California in 1880 in a two-man race against Republican Garfield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.42.158 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  not first time a Democrat carried California

message: The main Woodrow Wilson article states that he was initially elected with wide support from African-Americans. This page makes no mention of how they voted in this election, nor for any other demographic group. It would be of interest here because Wilson and his policies were famously racist, so I assume that black voters' support went way down, but I can imagine other possibilities (lack of publicity of the segregationist policies, fraudulent vote manipulation by whites, a belief that the challenger would be even worse, etc). If anyone knows where to find this info, please add it :) ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 00:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographic information? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States presidential election, 1916. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#1916 to http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/elections/election1916.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: located via ProQuest historical newspapers
; "Congratulations, U.S.A."
The Shanghai Times 09 Nov 1916 p7
"... Within a few months Mr. Woodrow Wilson will pass into the shadows of mediocrity, a dreamer of dreams. ... We do not anticipate a violent and radical change in the foreign policy of Washington, but we have a right to expect from a strong man a strong policy. The American people are to be congratulated on the election made, regardless of any party. Mr. Hughes stands for ... 
... [USA] and the world generally may benefit by his administration in a greater degree than that of a master of phrases had he continued to enjoy the honours of White House."
The following article, "The Outlook", is optimistic concerning the progress of the war, particularly in Rumania: "now that Russia with her millions of men at her disposal has come to the assistance of the Rumanians ... the pursued [Rumanians] became the pursuer ... the crisis in Transylvania seems to have passed ...".
On the contrary, we say at Marie of Romania, "After Bucharest fell to Austrian troops, the royal court was transferred to Iași, capital of the Moldavia region, in December 1916."
--P64 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Congratulations, U.S.A." on election of Hughes 

message: I realize that by this time Wilson was a citizen of New Jersey, but surely Southerners still perceived him as one of their own. His views on race, in particular, could not have been much more Southern. Surely this phrase, if it is to be kept in the lede, deserves some qualification. - Jmabel | Talk 20:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it would be wrong to consider Wilson a Southerner solely on basis of his racist views, however I second that particular quote being wrong. Unless I am misunderstanding the quote, there have been other presidential elections won by the Democratic Party without a Southerner on the ticket: 2020, 2012, 2008 and 1944 come to mind. It is especially odd not to include 1944 since the ticket in 1944 was the exact same as in 1940 - neither President Roosevelt nor Vice President Wallace were Southerners. YaGurlArchy (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I had a mind slip - the ticket in 1944 was not the same as in 1940, Truman flew out of my mind. Regardless Missouri is only debatably Southern, and is usually considered a Midwestern state to my knowledge. YaGurlArchy (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "without a Southerner on the ticket"