How Can Wendell Willkie Win in 1940?

Historically, Wendell Willkie lost against F.D.R. in the 1940 election and Roosevelt was elected to a third term. How is it possible for Willkie to win the election?

Bonus points if he can beat Roosevelt, but with Roosevelt being the super candidate that he was, I suppose it may be necessary to have him not run.
 
Cordell Hull vs Wendell Wilkie makes me think Wilkie would take it. Wilkie had more energy as a campaigner and there'll be a lot of black and catholic voters who won't vote for the southern Democratic Hull.

It was a 55-45 vote so a 5 point swing isn't that crazy a thing.
 
Make the 1937-38 recession into a Depression.

There are varying explanations for its causes, but there are two ways to make it much worse.

One, have Roosevelt's tax increases and public works cuts in 1937 be more drastic and lead to a lower consumer confidence. At the same time, have Roosevelt's often demagogic anti-business rhetoric during this period be more strident and have the FBI and the Treasury Department tilt at more windmills of nonexistent conspiracies than they were doing already. This would lead to an even smaller amount of business confidence and investment during the period.

With these two factors strengthened, I think the Recession might end up tipping into a small Depression. The losses in 1938 would be worse, and Roosevelt would lose further popularity as he would have on top of the court packing fiasco, a Depression, and the isolationist vote all acting against him. That might be enough to lose him the Presidency.
 
A different running mate might help.

I can’t say I know much about McNary, other than he dies before his hypothetical vice presidency would be over. To be fair the same happens with Willkie.

Was he a controversial figure? Or is it just in general that running mates can effect the outcome?
 
I can’t say I know much about McNary, other than he dies before his hypothetical vice presidency would be over. To be fair the same happens with Willkie.

Was he a controversial figure? Or is it just in general that running mates can effect the outcome?
The latter. McNary was fine, but I doubt he'd be nominated in any other year.
 
The latter. McNary was fine, but I doubt he'd be nominated in any other year.

It's hard to prove that running mates have decided even close elections and extraordinarily unlikely that they would be decisive in a race FDR won by 9.9 points! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1940

It's amusing that when political scientists debate whether running mates even help a ticket in their own state https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...han-400-electoral-votes.439601/#post-16716594 people here constantly attribute almost magical powers to running mates to reverse national landslides.
 
Roosevelt declines to run for a third term.

Willkie would no doubt have a better chance if FDR didn't run again--but is it clear that he would have been nominated in the first place if that were the case? Against a weaker candidate than FDR, the Republicans might have chosen a more conventional candidate.
 
Willkie would no doubt have a better chance if FDR didn't run again--but is it clear that he would have been nominated in the first place if that were the case? Against a weaker candidate than FDR, the Republicans might have chosen a more conventional candidate.
Like who? Their bench was devastated in the 1930s.
 
The most obvious alternatives were Taft, Dewey, and Vandenberg.
Dewey was really young and inexperienced, and he went from frontrunner to falling in the polls due to this perception of inexperience. That won't change ITTL. Taft and Vandenberg were simply too extreme, and the former is also really inexperienced.
 
Dewey was really young and inexperienced, and he went from frontrunner to falling in the polls due to this perception of inexperience. That won't change ITTL. Taft and Vandenberg were simply too extreme, and the former is also really inexperienced.

Dewey's youth and lack of foreign policy experience did hurt him after the fall of France. But I am not sure that Taft and Vandenberg were "too extreme." They were (like Dewey) isolationists (or as they would prefer to say, anti-interventionists) but that was a fairly widespread position in 1940.
 
Dewey's youth and lack of foreign policy experience did hurt him after the fall of France. But I am not sure that Taft and Vandenberg were "too extreme." They were (like Dewey) isolationists (or as they would prefer to say, anti-interventionists) but that was a fairly widespread position in 1940.
Well, the isolationists lost in 1940 to Willkie, so I don't know why that position would be more popular. But the main thing is both Taft and Vandenberg were more conservative on domestic policy than Landon. With the OTL general takeaway being that Landon didn't moderate enough (as seen by the GOP's move to the left with Willkie and then the even more liberal Dewey), I don't see the GOP moving to the right just because Roosevelt retires.
 
Well, the isolationists lost in 1940 to Willkie, so I don't know why that position would be more popular. But the main thing is both Taft and Vandenberg were more conservative on domestic policy than Landon. With the OTL general takeaway being that Landon didn't moderate enough (as seen by the GOP's move to the left with Willkie and then the even more liberal Dewey), I don't see the GOP moving to the right just because Roosevelt retires.

That the GOP needed to become more liberal and more internationalist was not a universal consensus in the party (in particular, some thought the 1938 election showed the viability of a more conservative strategy) and I don't think its triumph was inevitable in 1940. In the first few ballots at the 1940 convention, the majority of votes were cast for conservative and/or isolationist candidates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_Republican_National_Convention
 

bguy

Donor
Willkie would no doubt have a better chance if FDR didn't run again--but is it clear that he would have been nominated in the first place if that were the case? Against a weaker candidate than FDR, the Republicans might have chosen a more conventional candidate.

What if FDR dies in some freak accident right after the Democratic National Convention? Does Wallace automatically become their candidate or do they have to convene another convention? If the later then that would probably set off a nasty intra-party fight for the nomination which would cripple the Democrats for the fall.
 
What if FDR dies in some freak accident right after the Democratic National Convention? Does Wallace automatically become their candidate or do they have to convene another convention? If the later then that would probably set off a nasty intra-party fight for the nomination which would cripple the Democrats for the fall.

I suppose it isn’t out of the question for him to have died, what with his health and all and the stress of running a nation. I’m not entirely sure of the way it would work in such a case for the Democrats. They’d probably end up holding another convention, which Wallace very well could win given his nomination for Vice President. Unless it happened too close to Election Day.

The closest example I can think of is when Horace Greeley died, but that didn’t affect the outcome of the election particularly much.
 

bguy

Donor
I suppose it isn’t out of the question for him to have died, what with his health and all and the stress of running a nation. I’m not entirely sure of the way it would work in such a case for the Democrats. They’d probably end up holding another convention, which Wallace very well could win given his nomination for Vice President. Unless it happened too close to Election Day.

Would Wallace be able to win at a convention though? He would be able to argue he was Roosevelt's choice to succeed him, but he's still going to be pretty unpopular with the party bosses, and Garner (who I don't see being willing to step aside for Henry Wallace) would have the advantage of being the incumbent president (with all the power of pork and patronage that that confers). Thus it would probably make for a pretty nasty convention battle, that might leave neither Wallace nor Garner able to claim the nomination.
 
What if Vice-President John Nance Garner gains the Democratic nomination? He was a Southern Conservative opposed to Roosevelt and his nomination could swing the race in favour of Willkie.
 

Deleted member 1487

Historically, Wendell Willkie lost against F.D.R. in the 1940 election and Roosevelt was elected to a third term. How is it possible for Willkie to win the election?

Bonus points if he can beat Roosevelt, but with Roosevelt being the super candidate that he was, I suppose it may be necessary to have him not run.
FDR doesn't run or dies before the election. Only way. FDR was just way to popular. Unless perhaps something about his paralysis and poor health get out into the media in a big way.
 
Top