AHC: Exactly flip Roosevelt and Hoover

There is a Carter flips with Reagan thread, so why not a Roosevelt flips with Hoover? Hoover does not run in 1928 so Roosevelt runs against a lousy GOP candidate (take your pick) and suffers through everything Hoover went through. Hoover gets elected in 1932 and becomes a 4-term president. What happens in the long-run? Will the Democrats disband?
 
Well as Roosevelt was quite ideological,it was before the Great Depression and the republicans were still popular(winning 58% of the vote) and we're still associated with the boom, I think it unlikely that the democrats would win without some great scandal with the republican candidate.
Then the chances of Hoover being nominating and winning are even more unlikely( he was quite conservative) and when people have no jobs they don't tend to vote for that.
 
Well as Roosevelt was quite ideological,it was before the Great Depression and the republicans were still popular(winning 58% of the vote) and we're still associated with the boom, I think it unlikely that the democrats would win without some great scandal with the republican candidate.
Then the chances of Hoover being nominating and winning are even more unlikely( he was quite conservative) and when people have no jobs they don't tend to vote for that.

Well, in times of great economic hardship, voters tend to flock to the guy that has different views than the current president
 
Perhaps,but voters are generally intelligent and I guess they would see that Hoover wouldn't implement anything like that of Roosevelt and whatever,"New Deal" policies he implements in this timeline.
This could however have interesting implications on a ww2(if there is one), perhaps the Americans never enter ww2.
 
Why the hell would Roosevelt lose? It's not like he'd take the exact same course of action as OTL Hoover.
I think the point is that the Great Depression is going to happen regardless of the president or their policies. Yes, maybe Hoover's policies exacerbated the problem; yes, maybe Roosevelt could lessen them. But ultimately nothing anyone does starting in 1928 is going to stop the stock market crash and the Dust Bowl.
 
I've thought of something like this. Hughes wins in 1916, McAdoo wins in 1920 with FDR as his VP, he dies in his second term, FDR, having not had his polio does not sympathize with the poor as he did IOTL, but wins in 1928 on the basis of prosperity; when the rot from the 1920s cause a Great Depression after the 1929 crash, FDR does nothing, Hoover the humanitarian comes to save the day.
 
I've thought of something like this. Hughes wins in 1916, McAdoo wins in 1920 with FDR as his VP, he dies in his second term, FDR, having not had his polio does not sympathize with the poor as he did IOTL, but wins in 1928 on the basis of prosperity; when the rot from the 1920s cause a Great Depression after the 1929 crash, FDR does nothing, Hoover the humanitarian comes to save the day.

Would the poor shantytowns be named Roosevilles then?
 
Way back in 1996, I wrote the following:

Another question is whether Hughes could have been reelected in 1920.
Whether the U.S. joined the League or not, there was bound to be some
disillusionment with the war, a feeling that the peace treaty was too
unjust to vindicate our participation in the war. This feeling would
have run against Hughes as it did against Wilson, even if the details of
the peace treaty differed. Resentment against postwar inflation would
also have hurt Hughes as it did Wilson. So instead of a Republican
landslide in 1920, we might have had a Democratic landslide. In fact, a
legend might start that if only Wilson had been reelected we would have
stayed out of war, as we did from 1914 to 1916. "He kept us out of war"
would no longer be a mockery.

A possible result: James Cox becomes president of the United States and
Franklin D. Roosevelt vice-president. (This is assuming the Democrats
nominate the same ticket they did in OTL, which I consider at least
plausible.) Cox gets credit for the prosperity of the mid-twenties, and
is relected in 1924. In 1928, he hands over the nomination to FDR, who
is elected, but is in office for less than a year when the stock market
crashes and the Great Depression starts. The event becomes blamed
evermore in the public mind on the Democrats; the GOP wins the
presidency in 1932--maybe even with the noted progressive engineer and
humanitarian Herbert Hoover. (You can see the slogans: "He fed the
hungry in Belgium during the Great War. He can feed the hungry here at
home living in our miserable Rooseveltvilles.")

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/AmxfBn6LQLc/QpiTsslCKa8J
 
I've thought of something like this. Hughes wins in 1916, McAdoo wins in 1920 with FDR as his VP, he dies in his second term, FDR, having not had his polio does not sympathize with the poor as he did IOTL, but wins in 1928 on the basis of prosperity; when the rot from the 1920s cause a Great Depression after the 1929 crash, FDR does nothing, Hoover the humanitarian comes to save the day.

I thought FDR was a progressive even before his polio.
 
He was a Wilson-type progressive, not a New Dealer, prior to his polio.

And for the most part Hoover was also. He did far more than any executive during a financial crisis every had before. Some of Roosevelt's campaigning was actually against Hoover's intervention and Federal spending. Of course with a Democratic majority he dwarfed everything ever done in 150 to that point to include what Hoover had done.
 
Top