Alternatives to Charles Evan Hughes?

The problem is that to win, the GOP needs to unite 1912 Taft and TR voters--and Hughes was probably the best candidate for that, because he had been on the Supreme Court and was therefore publicly neutral in 1912. To be sure, by 1916 people like Lodge and Root had been reconciled with TR. But if even Hughes was too conservative for western progressives, imagine what they would think of Lodge and especially of the "Wall Street lawyer" Root. Besides, Root and Lodge were too pro-Allied for a country that wanted to stay out of the war.

Maybe by blackmailing the party through the threat of another third-party candidacy, TR himself gets the nomination? I explore that possibility at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/gop-nominates-tr-in-1916.398553/
 
Ironically, Root's best chance might have been 1908: I believe TR wanted him as a successor but he (Root) begged off citing health considerations. Had those been overcome somehow, likely with TR's backing he would have won, albeit based heavily on carrying the industrial northeast and Midwest (he'd have been shut out in the south and possibly the great plains).

Possibly former Missouri governor Herbert Hadley might have served in a pinch. The same might be said for Charles Fairbanks. By 1916, Albert Beveridge was damaged goods. It's somewhat early in their careers for either Irvine Lenroot, Frank Lowden, or William Sproul to warrant much consideration. And Hiram Johnson was probably too far to the left for the northeastern establishment. Long story short, it pretty much comes down to Hughes as the only real option.
 
Top