Bob Taft in 1940

JoeMulk

Banned
If Bob Taft had gotten the Republican nomination in 1940 could he have won and if he had what would the effect of a Taft presidency in 1941 have been?
 
he would not have done as well as Willikie. If he were president, there would have been no Lend Lease, the draft would have been repealed and no sanctions against Japan. s So no Japanese
 
he would not have done as well as Willikie."

I'd argue he might have done even worse than Landon did 4 years earlier. I think Taft's (best) chance of winning the presidency under OTL circumstances would have been 1952 and even then it would be by default.

To get Taft elected in 1940, I think you probably need to avoid the Great Depression somehow, or at least make it much, much shallower.
 
An interesting butterfly of this may be that Roosevelt is more relaxed in his policy on the war as he knows that the Republican candidates strategy is even less favourable.
 
The thing about Taft is that he cant win barring FDR doing something stupid.

Also Willikie said he'd vote for FDR over an isolationist republican, so nominating Taft would drive away many somewhat Willikie minded republicans.

Scenario A - Roosevelt goes full on as an interventionist, pushes for maxium aid to Britain, urges sanctions against Germany, and perhaps makes a publicized trip to Britain to meet with Churchill. The American people like Roosevelt, byt they don't want war, so they dont vote for Taft, they vote against Roosevelt.

Scenario B - Roosevelt says "no 3rd term for me." The Dems nominate Garner and William Bankhead. The GOP nominates Taft/Charles McNary. Perhaps Henry Wallace runs as 3rd party, and draws just enough states away to give Taft a narrow vicory.

I will try to post an electoral map sometine today.

Wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandinavian Emperor
 
The thing about Taft is that he cant win barring FDR doing something stupid.

Also Willikie said he'd vote for FDR over an isolationist republican, so nominating Taft would drive away many somewhat Willikie minded republicans.

Scenario A - Roosevelt goes full on as an interventionist, pushes for maxium aid to Britain, urges sanctions against Germany, and perhaps makes a publicized trip to Britain to meet with Churchill. The American people like Roosevelt, byt they don't want war, so they dont vote for Taft, they vote against Roosevelt.

Scenario B - Roosevelt says "no 3rd term for me." The Dems nominate Garner and William Bankhead. The GOP nominates Taft/Charles McNary. Perhaps Henry Wallace runs as 3rd party, and draws just enough states away to give Taft a narrow vicory.

I will try to post an electoral map sometine today.

Wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandinavian Emperor

I just can't see Taft winning in 1940, with the Great Depression as such a recent memory to most. Even if FDR doesn't run, all the Democratic Candidate has to do is refer to Taft as "another Hoover". Many of Taft's policies were more conservative than what Hoover did in office anyway, which is why I think you need to mitigate the Great Depression to enable Taft to win in 1940.
 
I think it would end like this.

genusmap.php

´
Roosevelt 497
Taft 34
 
He'd be the Nazis' choice, that's for sure. There's no chance in Hell of Taft winning in 1940, and he being nominated might make the 1938 midterms look like an abrupt interruption of a continued erosion of the GOP. I'm sure the Democrats will do a lot better downticket with a very conservative GOP nominee that represents the worst of the pre-New Deal period and the worst of isolationist thinking.
 

Hoist40

Banned
Why would being isolationist hurt Taff in the 1940 elections. Most of the voters were isolationist at that time, so much so that Roosevelt tried to pretend that he was isolationist.

Boston on October 30 1940 : "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."
 

Hoist40

Banned
The Allies had a lot of sympathy. Roosevelt was openly aiding them and still won IIRC 55 % of the vote.


Yeah but Willkie was at least as interventionist as Roosevelt so voters had no real choice on foreign policy. Maybe a non-interventionist would have appealed to many who ended up voting for Roosevelt, a guy who kept claiming he did not want war, yet as you pointed out was intervening on the Allies side.
 
Taft surely could not have won even had he been nominated without ASB intervention, so let us organize a little ASB intervention. Thomas E. Mahl has written a convincing account “Desperate Deception: British Convert Operations in the United States, 1939-1944” http://www.amazon.com/Desperate-Deception-British-Operations-1939-1944/dp/1574882236
showing that there was some British influence supporting Wilkie. Wilkie was lucky as well because Ralph E. Williams, the head of the convention committee and a Taft supporter, suffered a fall and died two weeks before the convention. Williams was replaced by Sam Pryor, a Wilkie supporter, who may have organized various misfortunes for Wilkie opponents such as a defective microphone for Herbert Hoover and ensured that Wilkie supporters found it easier to get tickets.

Now only conspiracy theorists believe that a British agent pushed Ralph Williams and the idea is very implausible because it would be such a stupid thing to do. However, agents are famous for doing stupid things without orders (see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/world/europe/08bachmann.html for an example), so let us assume that a particularly stupid British agent thinks that pushing Williams would be a good idea. As this is a very stupid agent, let us assume that he is caught by the Philadelphia Police. The result of such a case going through the courts and all the other examples of British influence turning up over the Summer could go a long way to giving Taft a chance.

As to the effects of a Taft Presidency, we are into the catastrophe zone in one of the possible Axis victory timelines.
 
Last edited:
Top