AHC: Socialist Party enjoys a successful Third Party performance

OTL, the Socialist Party of America, founded 1901, generally won about 3% of the popular vote in US presidential elections, with the exception of 1912 when they managed 6%; and while they endorsed the Progressive Party candidate Robert LaFollette in 1924, who got 16.6% of the vote in one of the more successful third party runs in U.S. history, it was not really their candidate, and in subsequent elections they performed more poorly than even their first five.

Which brings me to the challenge -- with no PoDs prior o their founding, how can the Socialist Party candidate for President (actually being of the SPA) win at least 16.6% of the popular vote in one of the contests from 1904-20?

Bonus points if the PoD is McKinkey surviving.
 
TR is eaten by a lion in Africa, or he's killed by Egyptian nationalists in 1910. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/qGNtgJVhWGo/1chwbBNCuQ8J The 1912 contest is between Taft and Champ Clark (without TR in the race, Democrats might think it unnecessary to appeal to the sort of small-p progressives who were attracted to Wilson in OTL). Debs would definitely do better than he did in OTL, though I doubt he could match La Follette's showing of 1924.

(I am assuming that La Follette does not run as a third party candidate in 1912.)
 
@David T LaFollette's 1924 performance might be a high bar; looking over the numbers again, you could say even breaking 10% would be a big deal in its own time, considering that's how well the Free Soil Party did in 1848, and they certainly managed to make their presence known in the history books. I think your "no TR in 1912" idea might actually be enough for Debs to pull that off in 1912; in which case, the really interesting thing is what kind of reverberations this has in, say, 1920.
 
Last edited:
Another reason why it might be misleading to compare La Follette's showing in 1924 with that of "radical" parties in other presidential elections is that some of his support undoubtedly came from German-Americans who were not particularly left-wing but appreciated his vote against the US entering the first World War.
 
To elaborate on that last point a little, from Richard Hofstadter's *The Age of Reform*:

"A very large portion of the La Follette vote appears to have been an anti-war, anti-British, pro-German vote, chiefly among Germans but in some part among Irish-Americans. MacKay (op. cit., pp. 216-17) doubts that this was very significant, but for reasons which seem insubstantial. Samuel Lubell, in a closer study of voting patterns, points to La Follette's strength in isolationist German-American counties that had not been Progressive-Bull Moose in 1912 and in counties that turned strongly against Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, after foreign relations became an important issue. Lubell concludes: 'The 4,800,000 votes which La Follette got in 1924 were often described loosely as the irreducible minimum of liberal strength in America. Much of that vote, representing approval of La Follette's opposition to war with Germany, had nothing to do with liberalism.' *The Future of American Politics* (New York, 1952) , p. 140." https://books.google.com/books?id=ab-59i3Zqn8C&pg=PA284
 
TR is eaten by a lion in Africa, or he's killed by Egyptian nationalists in 1910. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/qGNtgJVhWGo/1chwbBNCuQ8J The 1912 contest is between Taft and Champ Clark (without TR in the race, Democrats might think it unnecessary to appeal to the sort of small-p progressives who were attracted to Wilson in OTL). Debs would definitely do better than he did in OTL, though I doubt he could match La Follette's showing of 1924.

(I am assuming that La Follette does not run as a third party candidate in 1912.)

It would be a good start. Also, make the Democrats and Republicans turn more strongly to the right. No FDR and NDC is mandatory. With this, the SPA would become the voice of the American working class and would become at least a permanent Third Party, if it would not take one of the two parties place, similar to the Labour Party in Britain.
 
TR is eaten by a lion in Africa, or he's killed by Egyptian nationalists in 1910.

(I am assuming that La Follette does not run as a third party candidate in 1912.)

I can see the news articles title: "Former President Roosevelt eaten by a lion during his African safari.(...) Former President Roosevelt was attacked by a lion during his safari expedition. He fought with the lion to the death, but unfortunately, he lost the final fight of his life with the death".
Also, he wouldn't be remembered as the Bull Moose as he took nickname during his 1912 campaign and would be remembered for the "Teddy's bear" incident, which would drive him mad in his grave.
 
Last edited:
As someone who is interested in the idea of a strong American Socialist tradition there are a number of PoDs I can think of that could go some way towards establishing the Socialist Party, or at least a socialist Party, as a major force in American politics:

Wanking their successes in local and state elections. @SaltGiver has a number of threads that are a veritable treasure trove of elections that socialists came close to winning at various times. Giving them a stronger presence throughout the country could help them to build their profile and reputation as a credible alternative, whether that alternative is a radical repudiation of the wage system or sewer socialists who present themselves as better administrators than the mainstream parties.

Have Max S. Hayes succeed in replacing Gompers as President of the AFL in 1912. Admittedly a pretty tall order, given that he only got about 30% of the vote IOTL and Gompers' position was pretty well entrenched. One idea I had was having the Supreme Court not overturn Gompers' conviction in a year earlier in 1911 which could possibly result in a more divided leadership election with Hayes somehow coming out on top. Having a committed socialist in charge of the AFL could go some way towards strengthening and legitimising the Socialist Party. Removing Gompers could also lead to the AFL being more open to Industrial Unionism, which I see as more conducive to class-based politics and was generally supported by American socialists at the time.

Keeping the US out of WW1. WW1 was a disaster for the American socialist movement. First the war split them between the nationalists and pacifists. Then the Russian Revolution split them between reformists and revolutionaries. Finally the Red Scare killed off their growing momentum and they never really recovered from it. Keeping the US neutral, whilst it may not prevent the Russian Revolution or even Red Scare entirely, could put the Socialists in a stronger position.

Have the Conference for Progressive Political Action agree to form a united party, as was proposed in 1922. Doing so would not only allow the Socialists to unite the disparate progressive factions in US politics under their banner, but it could also mean that said party would end up taking La Follette's place in the 1924 election, assuming that the Democrats and Republicans still both nominate conservative candidates, given that La Follette was fundamentally still a Republican who wanted to prove that there was still demand for Progressive Republican politics. If they have a result even remotely as good as La Follette had IOTL it would be a good way to establish them as a force in US electoral politics on a national level. Furthermore, if they can retain their relevance for another 8 or so years they will be in a good place to capitalise on the Great Depression, assuming that still goes ahead.
 
Last edited:
Here's something I was thinking -- supposing we go with McKinley surviving as our PoD, so in 1904 the Socialists do about as well as they did OTL while a more business friendly Republican is elected the Major's successor; then in 1906, William Randolph Hearst is elected Governor of New York, launching him into the Presidency in 1908, while a sizable number of voters who usually vote Democratic are concerned by their nominee, and so are receptive to casting their vote for the SPA, growing the party's performance; come 1912, and it turns out that yes, that concern was very warranted, and Hearst's critics from the left are agitated enough to come out in numbers, even as the GOP is doing the same, pushing the SPA candidate that year to over 10% of the popular vote.

What do you guys think?
 
Here's something I was thinking -- supposing we go with McKinley surviving as our PoD, so in 1904 the Socialists do about as well as they did OTL while a more business friendly Republican is elected the Major's successor; then in 1906, William Randolph Hearst is elected Governor of New York, launching him into the Presidency in 1908, while a sizable number of voters who usually vote Democratic are concerned by their nominee, and so are receptive to casting their vote for the SPA, growing the party's performance; come 1912, and it turns out that yes, that concern was very warranted, and Hearst's critics from the left are agitated enough to come out in numbers, even as the GOP is doing the same, pushing the SPA candidate that year to over 10% of the popular vote.

What do you guys think?
If I ever do that American Socialist wank, which I probably won't because I have a short attention span and between Reds and Ruins of an American Party System other people have done it far better than I ever could, I will definitely steal this.
 
I also just happened across the new TL by @DuckymcDuckface where Teddy Roosevelt gets the GOP nomination in 1912 while the Democrats nominate the more conservative Champ Clark; and while I seriously doubt that Eugene Debs would or could get 19% of the popular vote with that kind of late PoD, I could see the Socialists doing better than their 6% if they didn't have two (or two and a half, depending on how you see Taft) progressive candidates to compete with, possibly breaking 8.5% or 10%.
 
Theodore Roosevelt gets the Republican nomination in 1912 and wins the general election. He takes the US into the World War after the Lusitania incident. In 1916, the Republicans re-nominate TR (for his "fourth cup of coffee") while the Democrats, bitterly divided on the war issue, in the end nominate a pro-war candidate. This leaves the Socialists as the only anti-war party--though it is just cautious enough to avoid being tossed off most states' ballots or have its candidate (probably not Debs) arrested. With its normal support augmented by antiwar (but not really "socialist") voters, it could crack double digits...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Theodore Roosevelt gets the Republican nomination in 1912 and wins the general election. He takes the US into the World War after the Lusitania incident. In 1916, the Republicans re-nominate TR (for his "fourth cup of coffee") while the Democrats, bitterly divided on the war issue, in the end nominate a pro-war candidate. This leaves the Socialists as the only anti-war party--though it is just cautious enough to avoid being tossed off most states' ballots or have its candidate (probably not Debs) arrested. With its normal support augmented by antiwar (but not really "socialist") voters, it could crack double digits...
Oh man, this would make the US a far-left country, since TR Republicans were already very left wing by 1910s standard. But, the problem is still the Deep South, where Jim Crow still existed.
 
But how many successful Third Party performances can the Socialist Party have? The US political system doesn't have room for them--unless they can spearhead a movement to make the electoral system proportional representation, they can only be a regional party winning elections in certain areas at best. Their best results would be always being able to throw the election to Congress with Socialist Congressmen playing kingmaker.

A successful Socialist Party means being able to win local and state elections and thus being able to control Congress. Having the Democrats become a regional party of the South is very helpful in this goal, where in the rest of the country, you'd have only Republicans and Socialists (presumably the Farmer-Labor Party, the Progressives, and other left-wing parties would either never emerge or soon fold into the Socialist Party).

Oh man, this would make the US a far-left country, since TR Republicans were already very left wing by 1910s standard. But, the problem is still the Deep South, where Jim Crow still existed.

That is the Solid South, of course, where outside of certain places like East Tennessee, the term "Republican" was not used to refer to a political party but instead was an insult.
 
But how many successful Third Party performances can the Socialist Party have? The US political system doesn't have room for them--unless they can spearhead a movement to make the electoral system proportional representation, they can only be a regional party winning elections in certain areas at best.

Note that in Canada, first-past-the-post didn't prevent the CCF/NDP from making considerable headway.
 
Top