"After the [1916] election, Fairbanks resumed the practice of law in Indianapolis, but his health soon started to fail.... Fairbanks died of nephritis in his home on June 4, 1918, at the age of 66." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Fairbanks
Suppose Fairbanks' health had failed a couple of years earlier, and he was dead by the time of the 1916 Republican national convention. Who would the Republicans choose as Hughes' running mate? At first, this might not seem to make much difference. As he had been with TR in 1904, Fairbanks was chosen to "balance" the ticket by conservatives who realized that they had to nominate a somewhat progressive presidential candidate to win--he was a sort of consolation prize. But it is hard to see him helping the Republicans much nationally in 1916. He might appeal to conservatives, but they were sure to vote for Hughes anyway--he ran a rather conservative campaign, and anyway the alternative was the hated Wilson of the Underwood Tariff, the Clayton Act, rural credits, the child labor law, the appointment of Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court, the yielding to railway union "blackmail" with the Adamson Act, and a "cowardly" foreign and colonial policy (failure to protect maritime rights, refusal to get into all-out war in Mexico, and the attempt to get early independence for the Philippines).
However, it is arguable that there is one state Fairbanks made a difference-his own state of Indiana, which was very closely contested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_United_States_presidential_election_in_Indiana And Indiana was almost a must-win state for the Republicans. If Wilson won the fifteen electoral votes of Indiana, he could lose every state he carried by less than 3.6 percent of the vote in OTL--NH, CA, ND, and NM--and still win 267-264! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_United_States_presidential_election Whether Fairbanks was indeed responsible for Wilson losing IN by 0.97% is questionable but at least not inconceivable. (Personally, what i think was more decisive was German-American resentment of Wilson's alleged pro-British bias in the World War. "Clifton Phillips notes German bolting from Wilson in Indiana, which he lost by less than I percent of the vote, and where one Democrat reported German ministers circulating anti-Wilson handbills." https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...on-if-wwi-didn’t-happen.507900/#post-21787955)
Presumably the eastern Hughes must be balanced geographically with someone from the Midwest or West--but who? A western small-p progressive like Borah (Borah had supported TR for the GOP presidential nomination in 1912 but would not bolt the party and join the Bull Moosers after Taft was nominated) would probably offer the best hope for carrying CA and other western states--but the Old Guard hated Borah almost as much as they hated TR and Hiram Johnson. Maybe someone from Ohio--either Governor Frank B. Willis or Senator Warren Harding or former Governor Myron Herrick? It is doubtful that any of them could have saved Ohio for Hughes (in OTL Willis narrowly lost his bid for re-election to James Cox, while Herrick lost his bid to defeat Senator Atlee Pomerene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_United_States_Senate_election_in_Ohio).
One interesting question: if Harding were chosen, and Hughes-Harding failed to carry Ohio, would that harm Harding's chances of winning the GOP presidential nomination in 1920?
Suppose Fairbanks' health had failed a couple of years earlier, and he was dead by the time of the 1916 Republican national convention. Who would the Republicans choose as Hughes' running mate? At first, this might not seem to make much difference. As he had been with TR in 1904, Fairbanks was chosen to "balance" the ticket by conservatives who realized that they had to nominate a somewhat progressive presidential candidate to win--he was a sort of consolation prize. But it is hard to see him helping the Republicans much nationally in 1916. He might appeal to conservatives, but they were sure to vote for Hughes anyway--he ran a rather conservative campaign, and anyway the alternative was the hated Wilson of the Underwood Tariff, the Clayton Act, rural credits, the child labor law, the appointment of Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court, the yielding to railway union "blackmail" with the Adamson Act, and a "cowardly" foreign and colonial policy (failure to protect maritime rights, refusal to get into all-out war in Mexico, and the attempt to get early independence for the Philippines).
However, it is arguable that there is one state Fairbanks made a difference-his own state of Indiana, which was very closely contested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_United_States_presidential_election_in_Indiana And Indiana was almost a must-win state for the Republicans. If Wilson won the fifteen electoral votes of Indiana, he could lose every state he carried by less than 3.6 percent of the vote in OTL--NH, CA, ND, and NM--and still win 267-264! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_United_States_presidential_election Whether Fairbanks was indeed responsible for Wilson losing IN by 0.97% is questionable but at least not inconceivable. (Personally, what i think was more decisive was German-American resentment of Wilson's alleged pro-British bias in the World War. "Clifton Phillips notes German bolting from Wilson in Indiana, which he lost by less than I percent of the vote, and where one Democrat reported German ministers circulating anti-Wilson handbills." https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...on-if-wwi-didn’t-happen.507900/#post-21787955)
Presumably the eastern Hughes must be balanced geographically with someone from the Midwest or West--but who? A western small-p progressive like Borah (Borah had supported TR for the GOP presidential nomination in 1912 but would not bolt the party and join the Bull Moosers after Taft was nominated) would probably offer the best hope for carrying CA and other western states--but the Old Guard hated Borah almost as much as they hated TR and Hiram Johnson. Maybe someone from Ohio--either Governor Frank B. Willis or Senator Warren Harding or former Governor Myron Herrick? It is doubtful that any of them could have saved Ohio for Hughes (in OTL Willis narrowly lost his bid for re-election to James Cox, while Herrick lost his bid to defeat Senator Atlee Pomerene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_United_States_Senate_election_in_Ohio).
One interesting question: if Harding were chosen, and Hughes-Harding failed to carry Ohio, would that harm Harding's chances of winning the GOP presidential nomination in 1920?