Huey Long Presidential Campaign in 1936

We all know about Huey Long and "Share our Wealth." Let's say he runs for president in 1936, challenging FDR for the Democratic nomination. After losing at the convention, he runs third party. I'm not convinced that he can win, but how would he perform?

-Which states (besides Louisiana) would support him in the primaries or at the convention?
-Which states (besides Louisiana) would support him in the general election?
-Who would be a good running mate for Long?
 
Most of the South probably for the first two.

No. I don't know if Long will even run in the Democratic primaries, but in the general election, the southern states will definitely vote for FDR, except for LA. The label "Democratic" was virtually impossible to beat there. The Populists and Progressives failed to dent the Solid South in 1892 and 1912. Even in 1948, when Truman had attacked Jim Crow in a way FDR had certainly not done in 1936, Thumond only won the four states he was able to get listed on the ballot as the Democratic candidate (in those states it was Truman who had to run as a third party candidate).

Anyway, Long's popularity is much overrated. To quote an old post of mine:

***

Had Long survived, I don't see any realistic chance of his winning the presidency in 1936. What bothered FDR was not the prospect of Long actually winning but of his getting four million votes--about one-tenth of the electorate. That was the figure given by a secret poll commissioned by Jim Farley in early 1935. Of course we now know that even had Long gotten that many votes it couldn't possibly have changed the outcome, FDR having defeated Landon by over eleven million votes. (For that matter, four million votes for Long couldn't even have prevented FDR's victory over Willkie in 1940, even if we make the unrealistic assumption that Long's votes would all come at the expense of FDR.) But FDR had no way of knowing that in 1935; many people expected the 1936 race to be close. And FDR even suspected that Long, despite his rhetoric about redistribution of wealth, was in a secret alliance with the conservative Liberty League to bring about a Republican victory in 1936.

In any event, it is very doubtful that Long could even win those four million votes. In general, third party candidates do worse in actual elections than in polls, especially polls taken several months before the election. (The "novelty factor" wears off and the "it's a wasted vote because he can't win" argument becomes more widely accepted as Election Day approaches.) Furthermore, in this case, there is an additional reason to expect Long's support to decline--the economy improved considerably between the time Farley's poll was taken in 1935 and Election Day of 1936. ("The U.S. recovery from the Great Depression was nearly as exceptional as the Depression itself. After falling 27 percent between 1929 and 1933, real GDP rose by 43 percent between 1933 and 1937. Indeed, the economy grew more rapidly between 1933 and 1937 than it has during any other four year peacetime period since at least 1869.1 The most rapid growth came in 1936, when real GDP grew 13.1 percent and the unemployment rate fell 4.4 percentage points. [emphasis added--DT] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5fe6/9df4347b6492d8ed108401b4078897350bf5.pdf)

Anyway, after Long would lose in 1936, he would be much more likely to end up in jail than in the White House, given the indictments and convictions of so many Long cronies in OTL--some of whom would probably be all too glad to testify against him for lighter sentences. (I know that Long's defenders say that if he had lived, he would have kept them honest. Let's just say that I'm skeptical.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_W._Leche
 
No. I don't know if Long will even run in the Democratic primaries, but in the general election, the southern states will definitely vote for FDR, except for LA. The label "Democratic" was virtually impossible to beat there. The Populists and Progressives failed to dent the Solid South in 1892 and 1912. Even in 1948, when Truman had attacked Jim Crow in a way FDR had certainly not done in 1936, Thumond only won the four states he was able to get listed on the ballot as the Democratic candidate (in those states it was Truman who had to run as a third party candidate).

Anyway, Long's popularity is much overrated. To quote an old post of mine:

***

Had Long survived, I don't see any realistic chance of his winning the presidency in 1936. What bothered FDR was not the prospect of Long actually winning but of his getting four million votes--about one-tenth of the electorate. That was the figure given by a secret poll commissioned by Jim Farley in early 1935. Of course we now know that even had Long gotten that many votes it couldn't possibly have changed the outcome, FDR having defeated Landon by over eleven million votes. (For that matter, four million votes for Long couldn't even have prevented FDR's victory over Willkie in 1940, even if we make the unrealistic assumption that Long's votes would all come at the expense of FDR.) But FDR had no way of knowing that in 1935; many people expected the 1936 race to be close. And FDR even suspected that Long, despite his rhetoric about redistribution of wealth, was in a secret alliance with the conservative Liberty League to bring about a Republican victory in 1936.

In any event, it is very doubtful that Long could even win those four million votes. In general, third party candidates do worse in actual elections than in polls, especially polls taken several months before the election. (The "novelty factor" wears off and the "it's a wasted vote because he can't win" argument becomes more widely accepted as Election Day approaches.) Furthermore, in this case, there is an additional reason to expect Long's support to decline--the economy improved considerably between the time Farley's poll was taken in 1935 and Election Day of 1936. ("The U.S. recovery from the Great Depression was nearly as exceptional as the Depression itself. After falling 27 percent between 1929 and 1933, real GDP rose by 43 percent between 1933 and 1937. Indeed, the economy grew more rapidly between 1933 and 1937 than it has during any other four year peacetime period since at least 1869.1 The most rapid growth came in 1936, when real GDP grew 13.1 percent and the unemployment rate fell 4.4 percentage points. [emphasis added--DT] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5fe6/9df4347b6492d8ed108401b4078897350bf5.pdf)

Anyway, after Long would lose in 1936, he would be much more likely to end up in jail than in the White House, given the indictments and convictions of so many Long cronies in OTL--some of whom would probably be all too glad to testify against him for lighter sentences. (I know that Long's defenders say that if he had lived, he would have kept them honest. Let's just say that I'm skeptical.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_W._Leche

I've read that Long himself didn't plan on running in 1936: instead he wanted to field a substitute who'd split the vote with FDR - electing a Republican - which would give Long an opening to run in 1940. But as you demonstrate, FDR wouldn't lose in 1936 even with a third party candidate so Long's plan would fail.
 
Top