AHC - Herbert Hoover wins 2nd term in 1944 or Post-War Era

The challenge is to not only improve President Herbert Hoover's 1st term (despite the Great Depression), but also lay the groundwork for him managing to run and win a 2nd term in 1944 or the general post-war era.
 
Wouldn't he have been a bit old for the job in '44, when he turned 70? FDR was aging too, but not that much.
 
  • William Jennings Bryan passes on 1908.
  • Bryan runs in 1912, and wins.
  • Bryan takes the US off the gold standard.
  • The lack of a gold standard mitigates the Depression (let's pretend earlier events haven't butterflied Hoover or the 1929 crash).
  • Because of the above, Hoover isn't as toxic, and is narrowly defeated in 1932 by Random Democrat (may or may not be Roosevelt).
  • Random Democrat serves two terms.
  • Hoover tries again in 1940, gets nomination as compromise candidate, wins a second term.
Sure, it's 1940, rather than 1944, and tinkering with the Depression might well butterfly WWII as we know it, but it's my best shot at getting Hoover back into the White House.
 
I’m assuming you mean that Bryan passes on running in 1908, not that he passes?

You could also have Hoover, or someone in his administration, have the foresight to see the “Crash” building and they could try to mitigate it before it happens.
Also, if Hoover is visibly active in trying to fix things and help people, once the depression hits, his reputation is much better and years later people will more likely say “it wasn’t his fault” and “he tried to help as much as he could.” Especially, if he never says “prosperity is just around the corner” or some such stupid statement.
 
Some isolationists talked of a Hoover-Lindbergh ticket in 1940: "At the 1940 Republican Convention, Hoover was still well liked enough for talk of a Hoover- Lindbergh ticket." https://books.google.com/books?id=-t3Hx4ASLKUC&pg=PA181 This would have been political suicide. Hoover to the average voter meant breadlines and Hoovervilles. No wonder the Democrats were still running successfully against him in 1948... (True, John L. Lewis backed Hoover, but he would be even less able to deliver the labor vote to Hoover than he was in OTL to Willkie.)

Obviously things would be different if Hoover had been more successful in meeting the Depression, but that is easier said than done. No, vetoing Smoot-Hawley would not have been nearly enough: see my posts at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-act-no-great-depression.324772/#post-9529921 and https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-a-multi-term-president.348959/#post-10976875 on how exaggerated the effects of that (admittedly ill-advised) legislation had been.
 
I’m assuming you mean that Bryan passes on running in 1908, not that he passes?

Correct.

You could also have Hoover, or someone in his administration, have the foresight to see the “Crash” building and they could try to mitigate it before it happens.
Also, if Hoover is visibly active in trying to fix things and help people, once the depression hits, his reputation is much better and years later people will more likely say “it wasn’t his fault” and “he tried to help as much as he could.” Especially, if he never says “prosperity is just around the corner” or some such stupid statement.

The basic problem is that no-one actually knew HOW to mitigate the Depression at the time. Standard economics (and Hoover made a point of listening to top experts) dictated that government intervention would make things worse. The economic tools to combat the Depression were only developed in the aftermath.

That said, the gold standard played a huge role in the severity of the downturn. Having an earlier Bryan presidency might (accidentally) mitigate the later disaster.
 
  • William Jennings Bryan passes on 1908.
  • Bryan runs in 1912, and wins.
  • Bryan takes the US off the gold standard.
  • The lack of a gold standard mitigates the Depression (let's pretend earlier events haven't butterflied Hoover or the 1929 crash).
  • Because of the above, Hoover isn't as toxic, and is narrowly defeated in 1932 by Random Democrat (may or may not be Roosevelt).
  • Random Democrat serves two terms.
  • Hoover tries again in 1940, gets nomination as compromise candidate, wins a second term.
Sure, it's 1940, rather than 1944, and tinkering with the Depression might well butterfly WWII as we know it, but it's my best shot at getting Hoover back into the White House.

Was thinking of having Al Smith win in 1932 in such a scenario, managing to help end the depression quicker compared to OTL only for some scandal or whatnot (possibly increasing anti-Catholic sentiment) meaning he ends up being replaced by a two-term FDR. Followed by a less toxic Hoover where he manages to win in place of Truman in 1944.
 
Top