Democratic Candidates in 1920 if Hughes Wins?

[Beata Beatrix]

So, let's say that Charles Evans Hughes ekes out a win in 1916. He's still involved in a more or less the same First World War, and his chances for reelection look dismal in 1920, with every minority under the sun hating him, although his opposition to the League of Nations might win him some votes.

IOTL, the 1920 DNC was a nightmare, ultimately coalescing around James Cox and FDR, but here, with a more solidified opposition, it might be less chaotic. Perhaps Wilson or Marshall would be chosen, or even A. Mitchell Palmer? Thoughts?

 

[Pericles]

Did Wilson win the popular vote in 1916? If he did maybe he runs again and wins.

 

[Beata Beatrix]

Did Wilson win the popular vote in 1916? If he did maybe he runs again and wins.

Let's say he wins it narrowly. His health might be better than IOTL, but not great.

 

[David T]

Did Wilson win the popular vote in 1916? If he did maybe he runs again and wins.

Even if he narrowly loses the popular as well as electoral vote in 1916, I think he has an excellent chance for a Cleveland-style comeback if he avoids a stroke (which is certainly possible, since he will presumably be under less strain, even as a presidential candidate, than he was as president in 1919).

 

[Beata Beatrix]

Even if he narrowly loses the popular as well as electoral vote in 1916, I think he has an excellent chance for a Cleveland-style comeback if he avoids a stroke (which is certainly possible, since he will presumably be under less strain, even as a presidential candidate, than he was as president in 1919).

He might be able to play the "He Kept Us out of War" card again, for real this time. Still, Wilson might have some opponents.

 

[Mikestone8]

So, let's say that Charles Evans Hughes ekes out a win in 1916. He's still involved in a more or less the same First World War, and his chances for reelection look dismal in 1920, with every minority under the sun hating him, although his opposition to the League of Nations might win him some votes.

I suspect the League of Nations was and is somewhat overrated as an issue - one of those that mattered more to candidates than to voters.

The cost of living had gone through the roof during the war, and many ordinary Americans were struggling to make ends meet. That probably doomed the incumbent party, and would have done so even had the LoN question never been raised.

 

[Mikestone8]

Did Wilson win the popular vote in 1916? If he did maybe he runs again and wins.

He won it very comfortably, with about 9 million votes to some 8.5 million for Hughes. 1916 was a cliffhanger in the electoral college only because Hughes won several of the big industrial states (Ohio was a crucial exception) plus three smaller ones (IN, MN and WV) all three by razor-thin margins. Had Wilson taken those, his winning margin would have been a comfortable 310-221.

 

[David T]

I suspect the League of Nations was and is somewhat overrated as an issue - one of those that mattered more to candidates than to voters.

The cost of living had gone through the roof during the war, and many ordinary Americans were struggling to make ends meet. That probably doomed the incumbent party, and would have done so even had the LoN question never been raised.

The League itself may be overrated as an issue, but the content of *any* possible peace treaty is going to alienate ethnic voters. "It's too harsh on Germany," "No, it doesn't give Poland enough," "It doesn't give Italy enough, " "No, it gives her too much at the expense of the South Slavs," "It doesn't guarantee Ireland's freedom" etc., etc. The economy is the main reason whichever party holds power in 1920 is likely to lose, but dissatisfaction with the peace settlement will also play a role. And that of course goes along with dissatisfaction with the results of the war itself, even among people who felt that Wilson (or in this ATL Hughes) had no choice in 1917. As one observer said, "It was not exactly a feeling that we should or could have kept out of the war, but rather, an annoyed feeling that the war should somehow have avoided us."

 

[Indicus]

Wilson, I think is most likely. Barring that, McAdoo is a possibility.

Any Democratic candidate is gonna win a landslide against Hughes, so I expect the field to be very crowded.

 

[David T]

One should not assume that because Wilson would not have the strains of the presidency in 1917-21 that he *necessarily* wouldn't have a stroke. Indeed, several historians have argued that he had a series of lesser strokes in 1896, 1906, and 1907; for a rebuttal see https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...s-cramp/1e57a122-e16a-4c39-9d18-17f07f8e33d6/