Alternate 1940 Presidential Elections

In this thread, I would like to present three alternate scenarios for the United States Presidential Election of 1940:

1. The GOP nominates Herbert Hoover for president in 1940. I was reading on Wikipedia that there was some talk about the GOP nominating Herbert Hoover to run against FDR. There had also been some talk about this in 1936, and in that year, Hoover had actually wanted to be nominated. Is it unlikely that Hoover could have been nominated again in 1940, despite his landslide defeat eight years before? If he had been nominated, who would be his running mate, and how would he do against Roosevelt/Wallace in the election? I think he would (once again) be defeated in a landslide, but would this have any effect on future politics?

2. The GOP nominates Robert Taft in 1940. This one seems likely to me. On the first ballot IOTL, Taft placed second behind Tom Dewey, and increased in strength until Wendell Willkie was nominated on the fifth ballot. WI Taft's forces grow stronger and he is nominated instead? Who would he choose as his running mate, and how would he do against Roosevelt/Wallace in November?

3. The GOP nominates Thomas Dewey in 1940. This one seems the most likely to me. On the first ballot IOTL, Dewey actually held a strong first, and led Robert Taft by 171 delegates. WI he was nominated to run against Roosevelt? Again, who would choose to be his running mate, and how would he do against FDR in November? If he lost, would the GOP still nominate him in 1944 and/or 1948?

I'm not sure whether FDR was beatable or not in 1940, because while his New Deal policies were still popular and he won OTL's election in an electoral landslide, keep in mind he did only win 54% of the vote IOTL 1940.
 
EV is the only thing that matters. Clinton "only" won 49.7% in 1996 but he won 379 EV. GHWB "only" won 54% in 1988 but 426 EV, and so on... ;) Dewey is too young and too inexperienced in 1940- a 38-year-old DA. In any case FDR will destroy him. Taft can be painted as a reactionary, and Hoover... no explanation necessary.
 
If you want to read a good book about how close the 1940 GOP Convention was... read a book called Five Days in Philadelphia by Charles Peters. It's actually a good read.

That said... Robert Taft. Run an isolationalist against FDR in 1940 and you could see a VERY interesting result. Most of the US populace was against intervention in Europe whereas FDR was doing everything he could short of declaring war to get the US involved.

A more isolationalist US could have VERY interesting ramifications on the war. Everything up to reducted or no lend-lease, to perhaps not even cuttig off the oil to Japan. This could butterfly away a lot of things and lead to a very dark world, up until 1944 anyways.
 
If they run Taft, then FDR can take Joe Kennedy as his running mate. I've done a TL with that scenario. The results are... interesting to say the least.
 
Hoover would be crushed.

As for Taft and Dewey, neither of them are really experienced, which I think would hurt their campaigns. FDR would probably still win easily. However, I think the most intresting thing that would come from these scenarios is the effect a landslide defeat would have on the Republican nominee. If Taft loses in 1940, is he able to come back and win it again in a later year? Considering he was never able to be nominated historically, I have my doubts that he could do it again, especially after WW2 starts.

As for Dewey, I think he might run in 1944 even if he lost in 1940. There's no reason to think he'd win that time either though, and then what does he do? Even if he ran two respected races against FDR, I'm not sure the Republicans would feel comfortable nominating him for a third time in 1948, even if it's in a year that they can't seem to lose in. In that case, Dewey might not be a strong contendor in 1948, and maybe Taft becomes the frontrunner and the nominee. This might lead Eisenhower to run as a Republican (Or even a Democrat!) 4 years earlier, in an effort to stop Taft.
 
Dewey would have to wait eight years, just as Nixon did. Running against FDR is a kamikaze mission for any Republican. Remember, among many other things Dewey was only 38 in 1940- far too young for most voters. In between TR and the rise of the Kennedys in the 1950s, no Presidents were younger than 50, many over 55. Harold Ickes had the best line: "he threw his diaper into the ring." :D
 
You mean Vandenberg. ;) Though he later became an internationalist, in 1940 he was as isolationist as Hoover or Taft. Even Dewey tried to hedge on the issue, though he was a semi-closeted internationalist in 1940, which experienced conservatives like Taft saw, and loathed, immediately. Vandenberg was a favourite son in 1940, though he would be a good ticket-balancer for Willkie, as an experienced (a two-term senator) Midwestern conservative that would please the base. In 1940, having both ticket-mates from the same region would be even more shocking than when Clinton did it in '92. Except unlike Clinton and Gore, Willkie and Vanderberg are not in ideological sync- quite the opposite. Rather like the mythological Rocky-Reagan ticket of the 1960s.
 
I think Roosevelt wins easily in all three scenarios. He gets the biggest margin over Hoover. I am disapointed that you didn't mention my favortie 1940 AH election. Roosevelt does not run and Paul V McNutt gets the Democratic nomination.
 
Because the OP presumes that everything occurs as per OTL up until the RNC. FDR was always going to run if the war was on. By the way, FDR detested McNutt- considered him a reactionary and would never allow him to be nominated. ;)
 
Top