Different Nominees in Doomed Elections

I think an interesting scenario would have been for the Democratic Party in 1928 to give the VP nod to Nellie Ross the former governor of Wyoming. The Hoover landslide was so massive I doubt if he could have been defeated but Gov. Ross would have brought much to the ticket that might have lessen the loss. Obviously she was a woman. She was also a "Dry" in contrast to Smith's "Wet" position. She was a westerner with southern roots and had been elected to a meaningful political position if only for two years.
 
Then there's 1936: I can't think of anyone whom the GOP might have nominated that would have had any really significant effect on the outcome. It was too early in Robert Taft's career; Arthur Vandenberg had just gained traction as the leader of opposition to the New Deal, so he wouldn't have been all that popular; Thomas Dewey was too young; Wendell Willkie was still nominally a Democrat (!); Charles Curtis had just died; it's highly doubtful Frank Knox had the chops as a newspaper publisher to get the top slot (recall he was Landon's VP nominee). The Literary Digest poll notwithstanding, the outcome of 1936 was essentially a foregone conclusion; the election itself wasn't much more than a legal formality.
 
So first part - what, if any, US Presidential Elections were pretty much doomed for one of the two major parties (not counting re-elections) at the start of the primaries (or conventions, if prior to 1912)?

The majority of 20C ones. 1916, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1976 , 2000 and just possibly 1944 are about the only ones from 1900 through 2000 where both parties had a chance.

Second part - who else could have gotten the doomed nomination for said year? Or alternatively, with the same nominee, who else might have been chosen for running mate?

Perhaps Hearst or (less likely) Wilson in 1908, if Bryan doesn't run. Could be important as it leaves WJB a still viable candidate for 1912.

McAdoo in 1920? Could lead to Al Smith getting the nod in 1924. This in turn could be a curse in disguise for FDR, if it leads to him being nominated and badly defeated in 1928, thus probably costing him the 1932 nomination.

Dewey in 1940? Probably means a different foe for Truman in '48. Any thoughts as to whom that could be?

1956 - if Stevenson doesn't run. either Estes Kefauver or John F Kennedy. Either way, this greatly increases the chance of the Dems turning back to Adlai in 1960.

Possible scenarios for discussion off the top of my head - Rockefeller getting the GOP nomination in 1964;

Goldwater in 1968? That's a thought. Probably the best news Hubert Humphrey ever heard.
 
Last edited:
For the UK 1997 was almost certainly doomed for the Tories. As decent of a bloke Major is personally Blair outshined him and the Conservatives just had too much baggage. 2010 meanwhile can be saved for Labour if (as much as I liked him as PM) you get rid of Brown for someone, ideally David Milliband.

I really don't see how someone who couldn't defeat his lightweight brother in a leadership election could retain power for Labour after a recession and 13 years in government.
 
I really don't see how someone who couldn't defeat his lightweight brother in a leadership election could retain power for Labour after a recession and 13 years in government.
I don’t see DM getting a majority in 2010, but perhaps twenty or so more seats so a Lib Lab Coalition is possible, also Clegg would probably prefer Miliband to Brown
 
The majority of 20C ones. 1916, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1976 , 2000 and just possibly 1944 are about the only ones from 1900 through 2000 where both parties had a chance.



Perhaps Hearst or (less likely) Wilson in 1908, if Bryan doesn't run. Could be important as it leaves WJB a still viable candidate for 1912.

McAdoo in 1920? Could lead to Al Smith getting the nod in 1924. This in turn could be a curse in disguise for FDR, if it leads to him being nominated and badly defeated in 1928, thus probably costing him the 1932 nomination.

Dewey in 1940? Probably means a different foe for Truman in '48. Any thoughts as to whom that could be?

1956 - if Stevenson doesn't run. either Estes Kefauver or John F Kennedy. Either way, this greatly increases the chance of the Dems turning back to Adlai in 1960.



Goldwater in 1968? That's a thought. Probably the best news Hubert Humphrey ever heard.

Wilson was still president of Princeton in 1908, which hardly qualifies him for the presidency of the US. IIRC, McAdoo ran in 1920 but barely registered much of an impression; besides, he wouldn't have been elected anyhow: too close an association with Wilson. Kennedy was a viable VP nominee in 1956, but not one for the top slot: he was all of 39 years old. When Stevenson didn't select him as his running mate, that's when he made up his mind to go for the big job in 1960. Kefauver could have swung the nomination but it wouldn't have been much of a prize, running against a very popular incumbent--Ike--compounded by the fact that he was from the south. Granted, he could trade on his crime hearings in the Senate but I suspect that Ike would have won by a margin even greater than he had IOTL.
 
Sen. George Allen Jr.- Gov. Tim Pawlenty vs. Obama-Biden.
Allen wins the '08 GOP nomination and during his acceptance speech after a big burst of enthusiasm from the crowd he goes off teleprompter and has his "Macaca Moment" calling Obama that in front of a national television audience .
At first Allen denies that it is a racial slur but the story falls apart when reporters dig in and find that it is used as a derogatory term in French North Africa.
Pawlenty stands by Allen in the beginning but as the controversy continues more information comes out that as a high school student in Southern California Allen flew the Confederate flag and at University of Virginia he used racial slurs, this causes Pawlenty to resign from the ticket.
 
Sen. George Allen Jr.- Gov. Tim Pawlenty vs. Obama-Biden.
Allen wins the '08 GOP nomination and during his acceptance speech after a big burst of enthusiasm from the crowd he goes off teleprompter and has his "Macaca Moment" calling Obama that in front of a national television audience .
At first Allen denies that it is a racial slur but the story falls apart when reporters dig in and find that it is used as a derogatory term in French North Africa.
Pawlenty stands by Allen in the beginning but as the controversy continues more information comes out that as a high school student in Southern California Allen flew the Confederate flag and at University of Virginia he used racial slurs, this causes Pawlenty to resign from the ticket.

Yikes would that be a disaster for the Republicans in that case. Obama would win all the close races he lost here, Georgia, Montana, both Dakotas, Missouri, and Arizona. Dems do even better in the House and Senate.
 
Arthur Vandenberg had just gained traction as the leader of opposition to the New Deal, so he wouldn't have been all that popular
Maybe the businessmen who did support Landon would have been more liberal with funding Vandenberg if he took a more economically conservative position than did Landon. This would have given Vandenberg a better chance of winning electoral votes at least in theory, although how many more he could have won I do not know.
McAdoo in 1920? Could lead to Al Smith getting the nod in 1924. This in turn could be a curse in disguise for FDR, if it leads to him being nominated and badly defeated in 1928, thus probably costing him the 1932 nomination.
Earlier today I was thinking that if Smith and FDR were both badly defeated in consecutive elections the 1932 Democratic nomination would have very likely gone to someone from the Border or West, like Harry Byrd, John Nance Garner, Albert Ritchie or William “Alfalfa Bill” Murray. There would have been many potential differences resulting, especially the GOP retaining the loyalty of those blacks who could vote in elections after 1932, and possibly a split with the powerful isolationist wing of the Republicans following the revelation of Hitler’s genocide.
 
If he had lived, Bobby Kennedy might have given Nixon a run for his money in ‘72...
I doubt that. Kennedy was an anti-war Catholic who would certainly have incited opposition both from liberals for his strong Catholic faith and from many conservatives for his powerful anti-war sentiments and for being too sympathetic to social programs against poverty.

It’s not perfectly easy to see where a surviving RFK would have obtained the base needed to challenge Nixon in 1972.
 
Kefauver 1956 (which can be achieved by killing Stevenson off before the convention) will piss off plenty of social liberals in the Democratic Party for his segregationist stance (which, if Eisenhower is more vocally pro civil rights I can see Kefauver being vocal about his segregationist views) which might lead to an independent run, which in turn could have interesting effects on 1960. My guess is that the Democrats reason that, in the long run, the northern wing is more important than the southern wing and a liberal backlash could lead to Humphrey being nominated over John Kennedy.


I do not think Kefauver was a staunch segregationist. He and Tennessee's other Senator at the time, Albert Gore, Sr. were the only two Southern Senators not to sign the Southern Manifesto (1957?) opposing civil rights legislation. He also voiced support for the Brown v Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court and voted for the Civil RIghts Acts of 1957 and 1960.

IN 1960, Kefauver faced a bitter primary challenge from the segregationist wing of the Tennessee Democratic Party, which he easily won.

He may not have been Hubert Humphrey on civil rights, but he was a lot closer to Humphrey than Strom Thurmond.

I just don't see him trumpeting support for segregation.
 
Last edited:
Stevenson himself, in spite of the enthusiastic support he received from liberal activists in the Democratic Party, was distinctly lukewarm in his civil rights stance.
 
I do not think Kefauver was a staunch segregationist. He and Tennessee's other Senator at the time, Albert Gore, Sr. were the only two Southern Senators not to sign the Southern Manifesto (1957?) opposing civil rights legislation. He also voiced support for the Brown v Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court and voted for the Civil RIghts Acts of 1957 and 1960.

IN 1960, Kefauver faced a bitter primary challenge from the segregationist wing of the Tennessee Democratic Party, which he easily won.

He may not have been Hubert Humphrey on civil rights, but he was a lot closer to Humphrey than Strom Thurmond.

I just don't see him trumpeting support for segregation.

For one thing the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Act were not worth the paper they were printed on. Southern senators watered it down to the point it was useless. Kefauver only support those bills because he wanted to be president and to do that he would need support from the northern wing of the Democratic Party. He did this for most of his career - opposing or supporting beliefs which he in his heart supported or opposed but realized that by going against his actual beliefs it will make him palatable to the northern wing of the Democratic Party.

If you want to run for president, signing something called the *Southern* Manifesto is going to doom your chances, especially if you are in a party which has a large northern wing. Kefauver was an opportunist. If for some reason he did get nominated and was put up against someone who supported Civil Rights he would most likely oppose those measures. This is seen in his OTL political career as well - he made his career in Tennessee as a racebaiter. Such tactics which worked in Tennessee clearly would not work in the rest of the country so Kefauver would occasionally vote for the useless Civil Rights Act and refused to sign his name on documents which would lead to unpopularity among most of the country.
 
Well, the Segregationists in Tennessee did not think he was one of them, so consider that as you will.

Some examples of his alleged race baiting would be helpful, because I have not seen any offhand.
 
For one thing the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Act were not worth the paper they were printed on. Southern senators watered it down to the point it was useless. Kefauver only support those bills because he wanted to be president and to do that he would need support from the northern wing of the Democratic Party. He did this for most of his career - opposing or supporting beliefs which he in his heart supported or opposed but realized that by going against his actual beliefs it will make him palatable to the northern wing of the Democratic Party.

If you want to run for president, signing something called the *Southern* Manifesto is going to doom your chances, especially if you are in a party which has a large northern wing. Kefauver was an opportunist. If for some reason he did get nominated and was put up against someone who supported Civil Rights he would most likely oppose those measures. This is seen in his OTL political career as well - he made his career in Tennessee as a racebaiter. Such tactics which worked in Tennessee clearly would not work in the rest of the country so Kefauver would occasionally vote for the useless Civil Rights Act and refused to sign his name on documents which would lead to unpopularity among most of the country.

Ike was lukewarm on Civil Rights himself. He supported Brown as the law of the land, to be sure, and even intervened in Arkansas to overcome violent resistance to de-segregation, but he did so out of a sense of duty (not a bad thing!) and not out of any sense that blacks and whites were equal.

The man on both national tickets who would have been the strongest on civil rights was none other than Richard Nixon.
 
Top