AHC/WI: Herbert Hoover elected in 1920, as a Democrat

What it says on the tin. From what I understand, the Democrat heavily courted Hoover (who, at the time, was an international hero for his relief efforts in post-WW1 Europe) to be their candidate for the Presidency in 1920, so much so that Wilson apparently straight up said that Hoover was his preferred successor. Ultimately, Hoover rejected their offers, partly because he (correctly) guessed that 1920 was a Republican year, and partly because (at least, according to legend) the only Democrat he had known growing up had been the town drunk.

But, this being AH, let's say "What if?". What if Hoover decided to accept their offer and run as a Democrat against, presumably, Harding (or whoever ends up winning the nomination)? Would he have won the election, and if so, what would a Hoover presidency in 1920 look like?
 
No Democrat could have won in 1920 - and the more fervently Wilson endorsed him, the worse he would lose.

You'd need Hughes to have won in 1916, and still entered the war. Then the backlash against wartime sacrifices would have hit the Republicans, and a Democrat could well have won.
 
Last edited:
Hoover would be more likely to win on a third party or independent ticket (the Hoover/FDR ticket that was talked about at the time perhaps?) than as a Democrat. There was too much Democratic fatigue in 1920 over the war and Wilson, and too much opposition to the League of Nations for the Democrats to reasonably win in 1920.
 
Hoover would be more likely to win on a third party or independent ticket (the Hoover/FDR ticket that was talked about at the time perhaps?) than as a Democrat. There was too much Democratic fatigue in 1920 over the war and Wilson, and too much opposition to the League of Nations for the Democrats to reasonably win in 1920.

Man, a Hoover/FDR Presidency is such an intriguing idea.
 
Hoover would be more likely to win on a third party or independent ticket (the Hoover/FDR ticket that was talked about at the time perhaps?) than as a Democrat. There was too much Democratic fatigue in 1920 over the war and Wilson, and too much opposition to the League of Nations for the Democrats to reasonably win in 1920.

A third party ticket, even if headed by Hoover, is even less likely to win in 1920 than the Democrats. Even TR couldn't win on a third party ticket in 1912. (FDR did want Hoover to run in 1920 *as a Democrat*, but there is no way he would throw away his future in the Democratic Party by running as vice-president on an independent or third-party ticket.)
 
Hughes carries CA, and with it the election of 1916

same postwar malaise and economic troubles as OTL, Hoover emerges as dark horse candidate in 1920 dem convention, chooses FDR as his running mate, defeats hughes by a considerable margin in 1920.
 
Hughes carries CA, and with it the election of 1916

same postwar malaise and economic troubles as OTL, Hoover emerges as dark horse candidate in 1920 dem convention, chooses FDR as his running mate, defeats hughes by a considerable margin in 1920.

If Hughes wins in 1916, things do indeed look good for the Democrats in 1920, but precisely for that reason it is more likely that they will nominate a "real Democrat" than an outsider like Hoover.
 
An interesting possible AH would be Hughes wins in 1916 so the Democrats win in 20/24/28. FDR being VP from 21-29 and then POTUS.

Hoover wins in a landslide in 32 because of Rooseveltvilles.
 
If Hughes wins in 1916, things do indeed look good for the Democrats in 1920, but precisely for that reason it is more likely that they will nominate a "real Democrat" than an outsider like Hoover.

that is perfectly true, but if its a deadlocked convention he could, perhaps, make it through as the compromise candidate

Wilson will almost certainly seek to pull a Cleveland and return to office, after all he might well have won the popular vote in 1916, and only narrowly lost the election
Champ Clark might run, as the Dems will almost certainly hold the house in 1918, he would be the most powerful Democrat in the country
Al Smith could well run, Thomas Marshall, Robert L. Owen, Oscar Underwood, hell, maybe even William Jennings Bryan might have another shot at the nomination

its not a likely scenario I admit, but this is an AHC, and that's my best shot
 
that is perfectly true, but if its a deadlocked convention he could, perhaps, make it through as the compromise candidate

Wilson will almost certainly seek to pull a Cleveland and return to office, after all he might well have won the popular vote in 1916, and only narrowly lost the election
Champ Clark might run, as the Dems will almost certainly hold the house in 1918, he would be the most powerful Democrat in the country
Al Smith could well run, Thomas Marshall, Robert L. Owen, Oscar Underwood, hell, maybe even William Jennings Bryan might have another shot at the nomination

its not a likely scenario I admit, but this is an AHC, and that's my best shot
Champ Clark getting elected president in 1920 would be interesting, because he died a couple days before the inauguration.
 
If Hoover is the Democratic nominee in 1920-and loses-that might have an impact by itself.

It almost certainly removes the possibility of a Hoover Presidency later on land it probably precludes Hoover's presence in the Republican administration's cabinet. Anyone have any thoughts of what would happen if Hoover were politically sidelined in 1920 to the extent a losing Presidential candidate would have been?
 
My guess is that he'd be an early proto-James Schlesinger; i.e., a man equally tolerable to both parties. Don't forget Schlesinger served in both Dem and GOP administrations. But as to the presidency thereafter, I have grave doubts. The GOP wouldn't touch him given his try as a Dem, and unless the Dems have a recurring propensity for nominating losers (apart from Bryan), they wouldn't give him a second chance.

Ironically, had he been elected (never mind which party) in 1920, Hoover would probably be remembered in a far better light than he is IOTL. It's possible that he might have had a SecTreas sufficiently astute (i.e., not Andrew Mellon) to realize that Wall Street was a bubble waiting to burst, and taken steps to rein in buying on margin. Hoover would be remembered as a president who got things done--such as the early 1920s demanded.

Getting on a soap box here, why does everyone assume that a Hughes administration elected in 1916 would prosecute the Great War in the same manner as did the Wilson administration, leading to such extensive postwar malaise and disillusionment that election of a Dem in 1920 would be all but certain? Let's get one thing straight: Hughes was not the narrow-minded self-righteous idealist that Wilson was, and it's unlikely that he would have surrounded himself with such nonentities as Josephus Daniels or <shudder> Bryan.

I suspect Hughes and TR would have set aside differences to work together politically to the extent TR might well have been SecState or SecWar, which would have led to a much more popular / thorough prosecution and a far more pragmatic peace. That in turn would lead to Hughes' re-election in 1920. No, I don't think TR would have followed him in 1924--by then had he still been alive, he'd have been nearly 66, which is pushing it, especially in those days. Rather, Hughes' successor might well have been Lowden, Lenroot, or Sproul. But that's another story for another time.
 
Why would a war conduced by Hughes produce any less weariness than one run by Wilson? The names of the Cabinet officers would have been different, but what could they actually do differently?

And of course at Paris (if he goes there) Hughes will still be only one vote out of three. There'll still be plenty of things to be unhappy about in the Treaty, whoever represents the US at its drafting. Incidentally, if it's only a few votes in CA that have changed, the Senate will still be comfortably Democratic, and will no doubt take every opportunity to find fault with the Administration.

It is possible that the backlash against Hughes might have been a tad less severe than that against Wilson. I gather that some of the latter was down to sectional resentment against wartime economic measures which were seen as favouring the South, and cost the Democrats quite a few Northern votes. Obviously this will not arise under Hughes, but there's still all those Wheatless Wednesdays and other tiresome stuff, so I don't see him winning. I find it hard to imagine the Great War and its aftermath leaving much in the way of positive feelings, whoever is running it.
 
Last edited:
Top