Champ Clark as 1912 Democratic canidate
- Thread starter Notsure
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 1912 champ clark democratic nominee
Clark would almost certainly win the election, even if by a closer margin than Wilson. Clark is an interesting figure because he wanted to annex Canada while opposing US entry into WWI. With such a contradictory foreign policy, I doubt he'd be terribly successful in that area and there's a good chance he'd lose in 1916.
There is no particular reason why his popular vote should be any less than Wilson's? His "folksy" manner will go down better west of Pittsburg, so he may be weaker in the Northeast, but probably stronger elsewhere. I agree he may do slightly worse in electoral votes if one or two New England States go for Taft or (in the case of ME) for TR. but not enough to make any difference.
Would foreign policy make that much difference to the election's outcome? Iirc most voters were far more interested in domestic reforms which Clark would support. OTL he played an important role in getting Wilson's measures through the House.
Clark was a Kentuckian by birth and made his career in Missouri. so can hope to do better than Wilson in both the Midwest and the Border States, and in particular is well placed to pick up MN, IN and WV which OTL went for Hughes by 1% or less. His firmly neutralist position on the European War would also be popular there. By 1916 the Canadian business was ancient history. Afaik he hadn't raised the matter since 1911.
BTW, all this assumes that there will still *be* a 1916 election. Clark will almost certainly support the proposed Amendment to give the POTUS a single six-year term, and can certainly get it through the HoR. If it is ratified (not certain but highly likely) then the next election will be in *1918* and President Clark will not be a candidate.
I remember that the reform should have started in 1920, to allow a second shot for Wilson (here Clark), Taft and Roosevelt.
You have a source for that? Afaik the version passed by the Senate contained no such provision.
I have seen a newspaper article (iirc in the Philadelphia Enquirer) suggesting that the HoR would *insert* such a clause, but its reason for thinking so was a belief that Clark, still hoping for another shot at the White House in 1916, did not want that election cancelled. Even if the paper was right, this consideration would not apply if Clark were himself the POTUS-elect. Also, the measure had passed the Senate with only one vote to spare, so that sending it back would create grave risk of losing it altogether. In particular, many Republicans who voted for it presumably did so precisely in order to exclude TR from future elections, so might well reject a version altered as you suggest.
Probably you're right: I heard that as an attempt to convince Wilson (and some Tafitists and Rooseveltists Republicans) to back it (it was his opposition to derail the reform), so if Clark decides he don't want run for reelection, it's possible.
Certainty is of course impossible, but Clark was born in March 1850, so a six-year term would have taken him up to three days before his 69th birthday. He might have thought that long enough, esp if (as is likely) he was smart enough to anticipate that 1916 would in any case be touch and go.
SsgtC
Banned
@Mikestone8 had Clark won the 1912 nomination, how would he have faired against a unified Republican Party? With either TR or Taft as the nominee? From what I've read, he would almost certainly have lost verses Taft and would likely have lost verses TR, but that the election would have close enough to go either way.
Clark would have fared (give or take a percentage point or two) the same as Wilson or indeed any likely Democrat. He was safely in the party's mainstream.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "unified Republican Party". Unless you're going right back to 1908/9 for your PoD, and somehow preventing Taft (or someone else elected in his place)from becoming popular in the first place, there is simply no way of getting one. In theory you can envisage having only one Republican candidate, but if it's Taft (or anyone similar) he'll only pick up half the votes TR got, and so lose to the Democrat. If it's TR (or a Progressive in his image) he will lose half the people who voted for Taft, and so be defeated by the Democrat. If it's a compromise candidate - a Republican version of John W Davis in 1924 - he'll appeal to neither side and so lose to the Democrat. Basically the only question is exactly how the Republicans lose.
SsgtC
Banned
By unified Republican party, I meant no GOP split between Taft and TR. Where even if TR runs, he pledges to support the nominee (yes, I know, that's completely out of character for him to actually do this). Or, what about this, and I'll admit here and now, this is probably a crazy idea: a Roosevelt/Taft ticket?
cpip
Gone Fishin'
Clark wanted a peaceful annexation of Canada: the famous speech he gave in that regard was in support of a reciprocity treaty between Canada and the United States: a precursor to NAFTA, in some respects. Clark's hope was that free trade would be the first step, and moving forward, ultimately, a union between the two.
He also opposed intervention in the Mexican Revolution, comparing it to the United States's Civil War; it's an interesting point, given that one of his biggest boosters and backers, William Randolph Hearst, was an ardent proponent of invading Mexico and enforcing a peace through annexation. However, it's also quite possible that Clark wouldn't have engaged in Wilson's moralistic refusal to acknowledge the Huerta government, for instance, which was the first steps to American involvement on the ground.
He also opposed intervention in the Mexican Revolution, comparing it to the United States's Civil War; it's an interesting point, given that one of his biggest boosters and backers, William Randolph Hearst, was an ardent proponent of invading Mexico and enforcing a peace through annexation. However, it's also quite possible that Clark wouldn't have engaged in Wilson's moralistic refusal to acknowledge the Huerta government, for instance, which was the first steps to American involvement on the ground.
I read that all expected Hearst to get an important position in a future Clark administration, including Secretary of State. That's would be interesting and also a little funny (and maybe it could open a door for a future Hearst's candidacy? He actually had presidential ambitions).
As Sec of State Hearst is an obvious possibility for 1918 (if the Single Term Amendment goes through) or 1920 (if it doesn't). Big question, though, is what the Democrats' chances are in November. Whether Clark enters WW1 or (more likely) stays out it will be very controversial and the Republicans are apt to benefit either way.
Trouble is, TR can't just transfer his support, as he was to discover in 1916 when Progressives ignored his advice and switched to Wilson in droves. Ditto the other way round if Taft withdraws.
Voters have opinions of their own and can't be just "handed over". Look at 1904. William Jennings Bryan dutifully supported Parker, but the latter still got only about 5.1 million votes, against the 6.4 million Bryan had received four years earlier. When population growth is taken into account, the disparity becomes even greater. Were either Taft or TR to "sell out" to his rival there would in all likelihood be defections on a similar scale.
Yeah, Wilson was popular for his neutrality promise but he won only narrowly in 1916 and he could count on progressive vote. I can see Democrats (especially with a controversial candidate as Hearst) lose against Hughes in 1918. Then he could led a last-minute intervention in WWI.
If its' still worth doing. After all it will be March 1919 before Hughes (or Harding or whoever) takes office. Even if the war is still going on then it is likely to be on its last legs and too close to its end for US intervention to make much difference.
In every case it's a good possibility to participate to Peace Conference without losing a man