Breckenridge/Lane was not a Democratic ticket. Douglas/Johnson was the duly chosen ticket in adherence to the party's by-laws: Breckenridge's delegates hung the Charleston convention by walking out, prompting a second convention in Baltimore. The delegates walked out of that one too, but this time the organizers had ensured there would be enough alternates around to have a quorum, so they were able to make an official nomination.. Breckenridge/Lane was a third party ticket, like Roosevelt/Johnson after those two lost at the 1912 GOP convention. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:42, November 3, 2015 (UTC)
The John Breckinridge and Joseph "Joe" Lane ticket were the Southern Democratic while Stephen Douglas and Herschel Vespasian Johnson were the Northern Democrats. I think it would make sense to have both of those tickets on the template. Same political party, just different fractions. --220.127.116.11 14:40, July 6, 2016 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian
- See above. The distinction between a faction which is able to control a party's national committee and a faction which is not, is all-Important. Turtle Fan (talk) 15:58, July 6, 2016 (UTC)
- Just about every source book considers Breckinridge-Lane to have been a second Democratic ticket. Footnotes are probably needed to explain this, as well as that there was no official VP candidate chosen in 1840 but R. Johnson campaigned anyway and got most of the few electoral votes they won that year, and the 1972 mid cycle change of VP.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 05:33, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
- This thing's long overdue for a major overhaul, I just figured we might as well wait a few days so we can include the new ticket. The footnotes you suggest are worthwhile, but there will be no mention of Breckenridge. The DNC fielded one ticket, and the template is based on the DNC. Turtle Fan (talk) 11:24, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
- A few days somehow ended up turning into nearly 2½ years.
- I haven't the slightest idea what the saying "dropping the baton" means.
- By the way, I read everything you guys said in the past. Could we maybe do something like a small footnote to mention to Democratic vote was divided in 1860 with Douglas in the North and Breckinridge in the South? It would be similar to what countries on template do it they lay on two continents. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 19:20, December 23, 2018 (UTC)
- That's not what happened, though. In 1836 the Whigs nominated four different tickets, went state by state, and ran the ticket likeliest to win that given state. If the Democrats had done that in 1860--Breckenridge in the slave states, Douglas in the free--then sure, it would be as you say, and annotation would be appropriate.
- But they didn't. They nominated Douglas. End of story, except that some sore losers who had voted Democratic in the past refused to support their party's nominee and voted for someone else. Someone whose campaign did not have the blessing of the DNC.
- If you really did read everything above, you know that Jonathan's the only one speaking out in favor of this course. And you'll know from elsewhere that, because he's so loopy and unreliable, he has never been made an admin and doesn't get a vote. I have been and I do, so that's the end of it unless TR or ML4E want to take it up. And if either of them do, I'll tell them the same thing I just told you. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:17, December 24, 2018 (UTC)
- Alright then Turtle Fan, I'll go ask TR and ML4E and see what they think of this.
- However, I have one more thing to tell you. The succession boxes on the James Buchanan, Stephen Douglas, John Breckinridge and George McClellan articles all mention both the Northern and Southern Democratic candidates as either their predeceasing or succeeding candidates. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 19:20, December 24, 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to include the Southern D ticket in the Democratic Presidential Nominees navbox--as TF says, Breckinridge was nominated by crybabies. Unfortunately, he carried the second-highest number of electoral votes in 1860. So we do have to acknowledge the elephant in the room a bit. The succession boxes with obvious asterisk is more effective, in my opinion, to on the one hand acknowledge the Southern Democrats' importance to the election, while not crediting them with being anything more than the crybabies that they were. TR (talk) 20:23, December 24, 2018 (UTC)
- I really don't see the need for that much, actually. Breck was important to the election (I guess; Lincoln cobbled together a commanding electoral majority by sweeping the free states, to which Breck didn't even pretend to have anything to offer) but not important to the Democrats, at least not to their internal affairs. He and his crybabies did the exact same thing that your namesake and his crybabies did in 1912. The only difference is, they didn't put the word "Republican" in their made-up party's name. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:12, December 25, 2018 (UTC)
- Meh, alright Turtle Fan! I'm not really happy about it but I can live with it. I guess Breckinridge stays off the template as the second 1860 Democratic candidate since he was part of the breakaway fraction. By the way, thanks for editing the succession boxes on the four people I mentioned above to get it out of the way with. By the way, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 20:10, December 25, 2018 (UTC)
- Don't think of him as the second candidate, then. The Democratic Party could not have been less happy about his campaign.