1912 election, no Republican split

If there was no Republican division, who wins 1912?

  • Wilson/Taft (Wilson Wins)

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • Wilson/Roosevelt (Wilson Wins)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wilson/Taft (Taft Wins)

    Votes: 6 30.0%
  • Wilson/Roosevelt (Roosevelt)

    Votes: 17 85.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Wilson's victory in 1912 is often thought to be because the Republican vote was split between Taft and Roosevelt. It was certainly on Wilson's mind when he was running for re-election in 1916. But what if there was no Progressive Split? What if the Republicans set on one choice, and the other behaved themselves?

Two scenarios: Wilson(Democrat) vs Taft(Republican) and Wilson(Democrat) vs Roosevelt(Republican). In each, who's the victor? Will the Big Chief stay in office if he runs? Is the Trust Buster going to get the vaunted third term? Will the Schoolmaster beat either of them, or strike a hole in one and win in both scenarios?
 
What about an alternative option.

The republican party goes against using either Roosevelt or Taft, seeing the need for a new face.

A compromise candidate was not possible, because TR completely rejected the idea: "I’ll name the compromise candidate. He’ll be me. I’ll name the compromise platform. It will be our platform.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1912-republican-convention-855607/

If somehow both TR and Taft showed more flexibility, and both agreed to withdraw for the sake of the party--something extremely unlikely--the logical compromise candidate would be Hughes, who had been a moderately progressive governor of New York, and who as a Supreme Court justice was not involved the TR-Taft quarrel.
 
Wilson's victory in 1912 is often thought to be because the Republican vote was split between Taft and Roosevelt. It was certainly on Wilson's mind when he was running for re-election in 1916. But what if there was no Progressive Split? What if the Republicans set on one choice, and the other behaved themselves?

The problem here is that the Republican split was a deep ideological divide between two hostile factions, the progressives and the conservatives, that went far beyond the Roosevelt-Taft clash. Even before TR entered the race, Wisconsin Senator Robert LaFollette ran as the Progressive candidate against Taft. Had Roosevelt stuck with his original decision not to run in 1912 and instead wait for 1916, then it would've been LaFollette who splits the party as the Progressive candidate. He would've recieved less votes than Roosevelt, but Wilson still wins.
 
I am uncertain about Wilson vs. Roosevelt--that would depend on how Roosevelt won the GOP nomination. If somehow Taft peacefully yielded the nomination to him, TR would certainly have a good chance of winning in November. But if TR gets the nomination only after a bitter convention fight (which is more likely) I think a lot of Taft supporters will refuse to vote for him unless he is very conciliatory, drops "radical" ideas like recall of judicial decisions, and assures pro-Taft politicians that he will not be vindictive in patronage appointments. And it will be hard for him to do this--it will make him look like a hypocrite after all the things he said during the nomination campaign.

I am much more confident that Wilson would beat Taft one-on-one. After all, the Democrats won control of the House of Representatives in 1910 before the Taft-TR split, largely because Taft was so unpopular. Indeed, much of the pressure in 1911 for TR to run came from Republicans who believed that he could defeat the Democrats in 1912 and Taft could not. But The Nation indicated the problem with that in its January 11, 1912 issue:

"Taft 'cannot be elected.' This feeling is undoubtedly the true reason why many Republicans have faintly hoped that he would withdraw from the field. But as he has now definitely and even defiantly refused to withdraw, the real question before the party is: 'If Taft cannot be elected, can any Republican?' More specifically, the question is whether any Republican can be elected over Taft's dead body. It is confidently said that Roosevelt could be elected, but could he? Could he, that is, if he first had to go out and make open war upon Taft, with all the imputations of false friendship and desperate ambitions upon his head, with his party torn asunder in the process, and with countless Republican enemies eager to pay off old spites? Under those circumstances, it would not be a cool judgment that maintained he could win." https://books.google.com/books?id=jWE5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA27
 
For some indication that if Roosevelt won the nomination after a bitter fight, he would lose many Taft supporters in November, we may look to California, where TR's running mate, Governor Hiram Johnson, got the Republican ballot line for TR, and Taft was off the ballot completely. "Refusing to run a write-in campaign, fifteen Republican county committees and forty Republican newspapers endorsed Wilson. David Sarasohn, The Party of Reform, p. 151. In a state not carried by a Democrat since 1894, and where Taft had defeated Bryan in 1908 by 22.5 points https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1908 TR in 1912 only won by 174 votes! (And Wilson actually got two of the state's thirteen electors.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912
 
I am inclined to believe Roosevelt would win. Keep in mind that with the exception of foreign policy and their preferred form of racism (typical white man's burden stuff vs. actually supporting the kkk), they were not that much different in terms of their "progressive" values. It's unlikely many Taft supporters or conservative Republicans would decide to support Wilson over Roosevelt. I'd say it's a Roosevelt victory. This would mean likely an earlier US entrance into WWI and a quicker German defeat. It may also mean a better Treaty of Versailles, preventing the rise of fascism, and possibly no communist takeover in Russia (if there was still a Russian civil war, the White Army would likely receive more support and win). Austria-Hungary may lose land in the treaty, but the empire may survive to some degree.

Of course, this assumes Roosevelt gets the nomination, but given Roosevelt's stubbornness, I doubt he would let people unite under Taft.
 
I am inclined to believe Roosevelt would win. Keep in mind that with the exception of foreign policy and their preferred form of racism (typical white man's burden stuff vs. actually supporting the kkk), they were not that much different in terms of their "progressive" values. It's unlikely many Taft supporters or conservative Republicans would decide to support Wilson over Roosevelt. I'd say it's a Roosevelt victory. This would mean likely an earlier US entrance into WWI and a quicker German defeat. It may also mean a better Treaty of Versailles, preventing the rise of fascism, and possibly no communist takeover in Russia (if there was still a Russian civil war, the White Army would likely receive more support and win). Austria-Hungary may lose land in the treaty, but the empire may survive to some degree.

Of course, this assumes Roosevelt gets the nomination, but given Roosevelt's stubbornness, I doubt he would let people unite under Taft.

Meaning that the 1920s are guaranteed to be a Democratic decade. And if TR is able to implement his New Nationalism, it would permanently establish the GOP as the more Progressive Party. In 1920, I think it's possible that the Democrats turn to Herbert Hoover as a compromise candidate (in OTL he was a Republican long before 1920, but he mulled running as a candidate of either party. Even FDR believe it or not visited him to try and convince him to run as a Democrat. Ultimately Hoover chose to run as a Republican thinking the Democrats would be unable to win in 1920. But in this TL he might end up running as a Democrat). If not, then perhaps Cox would ironically win the election he actually lost by a landslide.
 
Top