Al Smith as the 32nd president

Due to how unpopular Hoover was in 1932, the Democrats had an easy win. FDR got the nomination, however Al Smith was second. Let's put a POD with FDR losing the already close 1928 New York gubernational election against Albert Ottinger. While he still runs for president, this butterflies to him losing the nomination to Al Smith, who wins against Hoover but at a smaller margin than FDR IOTL. First off, who'd you think would be his VP? More importantly, what kind of presidency might he have in place of FDR? What kind of challenges might he face against the Republicans in 1936?
 
I rather doubt that Smith would get the nomination even if FDR were not available. The reason Smith was nominated with such little opposition in 1928 was that Democrats figured that Hoover was probably going to win anyway, so they might as well take a risk. Indeed, some 1924 McAdoo supporters thought that Smith should be nominated in 1928 precisely because they were sure he would lose--and thus discredit the northeastern "wet" wing of the party. "George Fort Milton described this sentiment to McAdoo in August 1927 as a desire to rid the party of the eastern 'menace' by 'nominating Smith and letting him have the terrific trouncing he is doomed to get.'" Douglas B. Craig, After Wilson: The Struggle for the Democratic Party, p. 108. (This was pretty much the same line of thought which led Bryan to mute his criticisms of Alton B. Parker in 1904: https://books.google.com/books?id=53zojBsecxcC&pg=PA157)

Indeed, even the northeastern conservatives like Raskob, who backed Smith as part of their stop-FDR strategy, did not expect Smith to be nominated. They were using him as a stalking horse for a more likely nominee (Newton Baker is often mentioned as their first choice.) In fact, it is doubtful that Smith himself thought he could win the nomination: "Smith's supporters ran a highly localized campaign, limiting their major efforts to Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Although Smith's name was entered in the California primary, for instance, he did not visit the state, and his campaign committee spent only $250 there." Craig, p. 232.

I agree that in 1932, unlike 1928, Smith if nominated would probably win--but I just don't see the Democrats taking a chance on him. An analogy: 1976 was a far more promising year for the Democrats than 1972 had been, but even if 1976 had been even more promising for the Democrats than it was, they were not going to nominate George McGovern again--just as the Republicans were not going to nominate Barry Goldwater in 1968 even though his chances of winning then were much greater than they had been in 1964.
 
Due to how unpopular Hoover was in 1932, the Democrats had an easy win. FDR got the nomination, however Al Smith was second. Let's put a POD with FDR losing the already close 1928 New York gubernational election against Albert Ottinger. While he still runs for president, this butterflies to him losing the nomination to Al Smith, who wins against Hoover but at a smaller margin than FDR IOTL. First off, who'd you think would be his VP? More importantly, what kind of presidency might he have in place of FDR? What kind of challenges might he face against the Republicans in 1936?

Why would FDR run for President as a failed gubernatorial candidate?
 
Why would FDR run for President as a failed gubernatorial candidate?

New York held gubernatorial elections every two years at the time. FDR could, at least theoretically, have staged a comeback in 1930 and ran for President in 1932, it's just as likely that Smith would have returned to his old seat and FDR would have gone back to Warm Springs.
 
New York held gubernatorial elections every two years at the time. FDR could, at least theoretically, have staged a comeback in 1930 and ran for President in 1932, it's just as likely that Smith would have returned to his old seat and FDR would have gone back to Warm Springs.

One reason Smith wanted FDR to run in 1928 was that he thought Roosevelt would be dead in a year, giving him the opportunity to run for Governor again if he lost to Hoover. So if Roosevelt loses then Smith probably runs for Governor again in 1930. He could win, but I don't think he'd be re-nominated for President in 1932.
 
The FDR thing is mainly just an excuse for him not winning the nomination. If someone has a better reason for why he wouldn't, just say it. Main focus is what a Smith presidency would be like in place of an FDR presidency
 
Smith was significantly to the right of FDR on fiscal and size-of-government issues, no? After all, he was a member of the American Liberty League.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Liberty_League

There is an argument that Smith moved to the right in part precisely because he was embittered by FDR usurping what he thought should have been his nomination and presidency. I expressed doubt about this viewpoint in a post some time ago:

***

… The idea of Smith as a progressive in the 1920's who moved to the right in the 1930's has been seriously questioned by some who see Smith as fundamentally conservative all along. This was certainly the view of Smith's closest political ally, Robert Moses: "Smith and Roosevelt were essentially very different people. Smith was an urban democrat with basic sympathy for the masses, but in economics he was a congenital conservative. Roosevelt was a country-squire liberal. They really had little in common but membership in the same party. Smith thought about economics in many ways like a Southern conservative Democrat. So did Jim Farley. Roosevelt showed after 1932 that he wanted no part of Smith, and Smith no doubt was resentful, but the cleavage is not to be explained on theories of the headshrinkers of the American Historical Association." https://vdocuments.site/al-smith-fr...he-new-deal-some-comments-on-perspective.html Douglas A. Craig also makes a case for Smith as a "consistent conservative" in *After Wilson: The Struggle for the Democratic Party 1920-1934* (University of North Carolina Press 1992). Craig emphasizes that the progressivism of Smith and many other governors in the 1920's was essentially a "business progressivism" with emphasis on applying business principles to make government more efficient. "Smith's labor policy, especially, reflected the essentially limited nature of his reform. His legislation was largely confined to the protection of women and children, by the same reasoning that he had expressed as an assemblyman." (p. 121) William Leuchtenberg in *The Perils of Prosperity, 1914-1932* also argues for Smith being basically conservative all along, and especially in the 1928 campaign: "On almost every important issue, the Democratic platform of 1928 paralleled that of the Republicans. As Newton Baker ruefully observed, 'McKinley could have run on the tariff plank and Lodge on the one on international relations.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=t5iJ7_DTAPAC&pg=PA233

... In short, I agree with Leuchtenberg: "In the 1930's, when Smith joined the forces opposing the New Deal, he was lampooned in political cartoons for betraying his old friends, casting away his brown derby for a top hat. This was unfair; Smith like many of the new urban leaders, was from the first fundamentally conservative."...
 
Maybe a POD is that Smith does not run for President in 1924 or 1928, and the nominee comes from the dry wing. Smith remains Governor of New York, butterflying away Roosevelt being governor. Maybe Roosevelt runs for Mayor of New York in 1933.

The question with a Smith administration or a Garner administration in 1933 is how much of the New Deal was dependent on FDR, though obviously the term itself came from FDR and his speechwriters. Big components of the 1933 measures were the repeal of prohibition and Roosevelt's forgotten and pretty serious attempts to balance the budget. Both probably would have still happened under Smith. A lot of the rest was due to Congressional initiative and retroactively attributed to Roosevelt by historians due to the cult of the presidency. Of the later New Deal measures, the TVA and Social Security were only endorsed by the administration after the proposals proved popular.

However, Roosevelt's ability to sell the measures and his ability to keep multiple plates spinning may have been crucial, But I honestly don't know. Just about all the proposals themselves were originated from outside the administration, including some measures instituted by Smith when he was governor, and some like ending prohibition and lowering tariffs the Democrats were going to do anyway once they got Congressional majorities.
 
Maybe a POD is that Smith does not run for President in 1924 or 1928, and the nominee comes from the dry wing. Smith remains Governor of New York, butterflying away Roosevelt being governor. Maybe Roosevelt runs for Mayor of New York in 1933.

The question with a Smith administration or a Garner administration in 1933 is how much of the New Deal was dependent on FDR, though obviously the term itself came from FDR and his speechwriters. Big components of the 1933 measures were the repeal of prohibition and Roosevelt's forgotten and pretty serious attempts to balance the budget. Both probably would have still happened under Smith. A lot of the rest was due to Congressional initiative and retroactively attributed to Roosevelt by historians due to the cult of the presidency. Of the later New Deal measures, the TVA and Social Security were only endorsed by the administration after the proposals proved popular.

However, Roosevelt's ability to sell the measures and his ability to keep multiple plates spinning may have been crucial, But I honestly don't know. Just about all the proposals themselves were originated from outside the administration, including some measures instituted by Smith when he was governor, and some like ending prohibition and lowering tariffs the Democrats were going to do anyway once they got Congressional majorities.

The issue is that Smith would have actively opposed, and maybe even vetoed, alot of New Deal measures, especially those that increased regulation of businesses.
 
"In a clear repudiation of Roosevelt's views, Smith lent his support to the sales tax proposal that had recently failed in Congress.20 'It is important in the imposition of new taxes,' he argued, 'that no greater strain be put upon industry or business than is absolutely necessary.' The sales tax, by spreading its burden across all members of society, would not single out business profits or capital investment to bear the brunt of the government's budgetary woes.21" Douglas B. Craig, After Wilson: The Struggle for the Democratic Party 1920-1934, p. 230. (Smith did favor a public works program, but felt that it should be funded by a federal bond issue.)
 
So, what would the 1936 elections look like with a Smith administration? Can we see Huey Long ride a populist wave of anger with both Democrats and Republicans and win in 1936?
 
Top