AHC: Form a Left-Wing Third Party in America

Good start, except I'm having a hard time believing Smith, a Catholic, would be able to beat Hoover. I think you are underestimating the racism of Americans.

Depression trumps prejudice. Consider the instances of voters in Ohio and elsewhere who voted to reelect President Obama despite wrongly believing him to be a Muslim.
 
Huey Long was a founder of the Progressive Populists? When was it founded, in 1930?

Well, the POD is that Long does not run for president, and is not assassinated in 1935. Instead, he becomes increasingly anti-establishment and assisted the La Follette clan of Wisconsin in uniting the Wisconsin Progressives, Minnesota Farmer-Labour, and the Nonpartisan League.
Long serves as chairman of the Progressive People's Party from 1937 to 1942, but ends up running for president under the PPP ticket in 1944, but died of a few months after the campaign.
 
Sounds legit.
So, I imagine ATL Democrats being dominated by moderates, with smaller liberal and conservative wings also present. Democrats, in essence, range from a bit left of centre to a bit right of centre.

More or less. With Republicans as a free market party with different wings on on social policy questions, and a hardcore Paulite minority.
 
More or less. With Republicans as a free market party with different wings on on social policy questions, and a hardcore Paulite minority.

Alright. So the Republicans are big tent, united by fiscal conservatism, divided down the middle between classical liberals and conservatives, with pockets of Christian right and libertarians in between.
 
Good stuff, chappie:D

Maybe we should do a collaborative wikibox TL for this later on.

I've considered another possible list of Presidents of the United States:

Albert Ritchie (Democrat) 1933-1936
Harry B. Hawes (Democrat) 1936-1941
Arthur Vandenberg (Republican) 1941-1949
Robert La Follette Jr. (Progressive) 1949-1953
Wayne Morse (Progressive) 1953-1957
Frank Lausche (Democratic) 1957-1965
Barry Goldwater (Republican) 1965-1969

et cetera

Note that presidents Ritchie and La Follette die in office.
 
I've considered another possible list of Presidents of the United States:

Albert Ritchie (Democrat) 1933-1936
Harry B. Hawes (Democrat) 1936-1941
Arthur Vandenberg (Republican) 1941-1949
Robert La Follette Jr. (Progressive) 1949-1953
Wayne Morse (Progressive) 1953-1957
Frank Lausche (Democratic) 1957-1965
Barry Goldwater (Republican) 1965-1969

et cetera

Note that presidents Ritchie and La Follette die in office.

I'm revising this again:

Albert Ritchie (Democrat) 1933-1936
Harry B. Hawes (Democrat) 1936-1941
Arthur Vandenberg (Republican) 1941-1949
Robert La Follette Jr. (Progressive) 1949-1953
Wayne Morse (Progressive) 1953-1957
Estes Kefauver (Democratic) 1957-1963
John McCormack (Democratic) 1963-1969
Barry Goldwater (Republican) 1969-1977
Birch Bayh (Democratic) 1977-1985
William Milliken (Republican) 1985-1993
Evan Bayh (Democratic) 1993-2001


et cetera
 
I'm revising this again:

Albert Ritchie (Democrat) 1933-1936
Harry B. Hawes (Democrat) 1936-1941
Arthur Vandenberg (Republican) 1941-1949
Robert La Follette Jr. (Progressive) 1949-1953
Wayne Morse (Progressive) 1953-1957
Estes Kefauver (Democratic) 1957-1963
John McCormack (Democratic) 1963-1969
Barry Goldwater (Republican) 1969-1977
Birch Bayh (Democratic) 1977-1985
William Milliken (Republican) 1985-1993
Evan Bayh (Democratic) 1993-2001


et cetera

The way I imagined the TL, I don't think there would be any Progressive presidents, but maybe one administration had a Democrat-Progressive coalition cabinet.
 
You're likely correct, but this was an interesting thought experiment. I've fleshed out this list here.

Cool. But for my conception of the Progressive Populists, look to the NDP in Canada for what I think their role would be.
Also, I'm imagining that the PPP's success would make other third parties be taken a little more seriously, with other small parties scoring occasional House seats.
 
Perhaps. Let's think more on this......

POD: FDR loses the NY gubernatorial election in 1930.

ITIYM 1928. He won by a landslide in 1930. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_state_election,_1930

Anyway, whether or not FDR is around, I don't see the Democrats nominating Smith in 1932. With victory in their grasp, the Democrats are not going to take any chances by nominating a Catholic. (The only reason Smith was nominated so easily in 1928 is that those opposed to him felt that Hoover would probably win, anyway, so make Smith take the blame...)

If FDR isn't around in 1932, the Democrats will nominate another Protestant--most likely Newton Baker, despite Hearst's dislike of him.
 
Depression trumps prejudice. Consider the instances of voters in Ohio and elsewhere who voted to reelect President Obama despite wrongly believing him to be a Muslim.

Smith would probably be able to defeat Hoover in 1932. What I don't see is his getting the Democratic nomination. This isn't like 1928, when the Democrats were underdogs anyway and could take a risk. With the presidency within their grasp, they are taking no chances. They are not nominating a man who lost by nearly 3-2 in 1928.

Indeed, in OTL Smith's candidacy may have been one major reason FDR was nominated. As Douglas A. Craig has put it: "By not withdrawing, he [Smith] unwittingly helped Roosevelt maintain his strength between the vital third and fourth ballots. Had he withdrawn then, William Allen White wrote Ralph Hayes soon after the convention, FDR's support would have evaporated quickly: 'So long as Smith was in, Roosevelt was fairly safe. You cannot imagine the fear and dread of the South and West which even the possibility of Smith's nomination produced.'" *After Wilson: The Struggle for the Democratic Party 1920-1934*, pp. 245-6.
 
ITIYM 1928. He won by a landslide in 1930. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_state_election,_1930

Anyway, whether or not FDR is around, I don't see the Democrats nominating Smith in 1932. With victory in their grasp, the Democrats are not going to take any chances by nominating a Catholic. (The only reason Smith was nominated so easily in 1928 is that those opposed to him felt that Hoover would probably win, anyway, so make Smith take the blame...)

If FDR isn't around in 1932, the Democrats will nominate another Protestant--most likely Newton Baker, despite Hearst's dislike of him.

You're right; my mistake :(

Smith would probably be able to defeat Hoover in 1932. What I don't see is his getting the Democratic nomination. This isn't like 1928, when the Democrats were underdogs anyway and could take a risk. With the presidency within their grasp, they are taking no chances. They are not nominating a man who lost by nearly 3-2 in 1928.

Indeed, in OTL Smith's candidacy may have been one major reason FDR was nominated. As Douglas A. Craig has put it: "By not withdrawing, he [Smith] unwittingly helped Roosevelt maintain his strength between the vital third and fourth ballots. Had he withdrawn then, William Allen White wrote Ralph Hayes soon after the convention, FDR's support would have evaporated quickly: 'So long as Smith was in, Roosevelt was fairly safe. You cannot imagine the fear and dread of the South and West which even the possibility of Smith's nomination produced.'" *After Wilson: The Struggle for the Democratic Party 1920-1934*, pp. 245-6.

That is interesting.
 
Cool. But for my conception of the Progressive Populists, look to the NDP in Canada for what I think their role would be.
Also, I'm imagining that the PPP's success would make other third parties be taken a little more seriously, with other small parties scoring occasional House seats.

And I should probably change the colors accordingly. Your broader point though is an interesting one regarding a party system in state, local, and congressional elections more like Canada's.
 
And I should probably change the colors accordingly. Your broader point though is an interesting one regarding a party system in state, local, and congressional elections more like Canada's.

Yeah, I was imagining America forming a two-and-a-half party system like Britain and Canada's, with two big parties, a smaller third party, and a handful of very small parties.
 
An idea about PPP's ideological evolution:

At first, the Progressive Populists are agrarian-oriented in 1930s and 1940s, but in the early 50s, left-wingers under attack from McCarthyites sheltered under the more respectable label of progressive populism. Meanwhile, liberal Democrats occasionally defected to the PPP, feeling their party was becoming too centrist.
And in the late 20th century, a strong socially progressive wing of the party emerged, which championed civil rights and dovish foreign policy, and is more economically moderate than the old guard populists.
 
Top