Hughes wins 1916, 1920 and after

Other than 2000, this is the easiest election one can imagine being flipped.

My guess is that Hughes is not able to stay out of WW1 (any suggestion of otherwise? )

I am assuming that the Party with the White House loses 1920 (again any alternative suggestion?)

Who do Democrats run?

How likely is is that this will strengthen Republican progressives and Democrat conservatives?

Of is is possible that Federal policies in the 1920s could prevent the Great Depression?
 
Other than 2000, this is the easiest election one can imagine being flipped.

My guess is that Hughes is not able to stay out of WW1 (any suggestion of otherwise? )


It's just conceivable. If Hughes starts convoying US Merchantmen(on route to other neutrals) and/or calles a conference of neutral nations to uphold their rights against the belligerants (the smaller neutrals sometimes sought this but neither Wilson nor even Bryan showed any interest) then the Germans may avoid provoking the US with u-boat attacks. However,at best it's avery long shot [1]


I am assuming that the Party with the White House loses 1920 (again any alternative suggestion?)

Who do Democrats run?

If his health permits, probably ex-President Wilson. After all, he will still have comfortably won the popular vote.

Otherwise it's wide open. The OTL nominee, James M Cox, is as likely as anyone.



How likely is is that this will strengthen Republican progressives and Democrat conservatives?

No obvious reason. Dems were pretty firmly established as the "progressive" party from 1896 onwards. And Hughes was only the mildest kind of progressive; he isn't going to turn the GOP round in any major way. Even TR never came anywhere near doing that.


Of is is possible that Federal policies in the 1920s could prevent the Great Depression?

Just possible if the 1920s Presidents are mostly Democrats. If they are Republicans, then probably little change.


[1] I assume here that Wilson goes through with his plan to appoint Huges Sec of State, and have himself and Marshall then resign. If Hughes has to wait till March, then of course it will be too late for him to change anything much.
 
Last edited:
Hughes was, IIRC, in favor of entering the conflict. There's nothing to suggest that he wasn't, other than wishful thinking on the part of latter-day Wilson haters. There's a reason why he had the total support of the warmongering former CIC, after all.

Not necessarily. The Democrats lost in 1920 because they failed the peace, rather than actively lost the war. That, combined with reconversion being a gigantic clusterfuck.

Woodrow Wilson.

Hughes was a conservative himself who ran in 1916 critical of Wilson's adoption of an eight-hour workday and a ban on child labor. He reinforced that conservatism on the Supreme Court much later when he argued against the New Deal. If anything, Republican progressives will continue deserting the GOP for the Democrats, a process sped up by Roosevelt's conversion to conservatism (around the beginning of the Wilson administration), Bob La Follette going AWOL, and the Taftite wing ruling supreme over the Republicans thereafter.

No idea about the Depression, but I'm skeptical than anything in the decade prior is going to stop it from happening.
 
Hughes was, IIRC, in favor of entering the conflict. There's nothing to suggest that he wasn't, other than wishful thinking on the part of latter-day Wilson haters. There's a reason why he had the total support of the warmongering former CIC, after all.


There's a reason all right. With Taft out of office, TR's No 1 hate was now Wilson - and Hughes was about the only one with a realistic chance of getting Wilson out.

TR had no particular fondness for Hughes as a person, regarding him as altogether too much like Wilson. He was very fond of spreading a tale that he had met three newsboys who were on the Hughes train "They all voted for Wilson" and three more who were at Shadow Lawn "They voted for Hughes". Naturally, with Wilson the only alternative, TR soon convinced himself that Hughes was in his camp about his other obsession - the war. "He'll betray all those German-Americans who vote for him" but TR was pretty good at self-deception and there's no knowing whether or not he was correct. He was far too emotionally hung up for his opinion, on its own, to be worth a hoot.

Hughes certainly came round to supporting war once American ships started getting sunk, but what he thought in 1916 is anybody's guess. He had to carry both the pro-Allied northeast and the isolationist midwest in order to get in, so his cards were understandably close to his chest.
 
Last edited:
President Wood

My understanding is that the Republicans wanted General Leonard Wood to head the AEF. If that's the case and he does not jungle the job, I see him as being a very strong candidate in 1924. Wood died in 1927 so his choice of a running mate could be very important.
 
I'll take some time to formulate my thoughts on this, but I'm definitely following it. I will say that almost certainly both Wilson and Hughes knew American would not be able to remain neutral until the fighting ended.
 
Arguably a Hughes win in 1916 could really change the parties.

If he wins in 1916 the odds favor a Dem win in 1920 because whoever was in power is going to take blame for post war issues.

If the Dems win in 1920 they take credit for the post war boom and the more pro business wing of the party dominates. Remember both GOP and Dems were mostly small govt in that era.

This could lead to the GOP sweeping into power in 1932 led by Herbert Hoover, the savior of WW1 Europe food crisis.
 
This could lead to the GOP sweeping into power in 1932 led by Herbert Hoover, the savior of WW1 Europe food crisis.

In 1924, both main candidates were so conservative it prompted a third-party Progressive to run to give Progressives a candidate.

Now, if Hughes does win in '16, he's going to lose his Vice-President partway into his term. He'll certainly run again in '20, but win or lose he needs a new running mate. Harding? Coolidge? Lenroot?
 
In 1924, both main candidates were so conservative it prompted a third-party Progressive to run to give Progressives a candidate.

Now, if Hughes does win in '16, he's going to lose his Vice-President partway into his term. He'll certainly run again in '20, but win or lose he needs a new running mate. Harding? Coolidge? Lenroot?


Probably Harding.

It won't be Coolidge as they are both from the northeast. Lenroot is unlikely becaue Senator Husting's accidental death is most probably butterflied away, leaving Lenroot an obscure Congressman. I agree, though, that ir probably doesn't matter, as this will probably be the losing ticket anyway.
 
I wonder what TR does in the event of a Hughes victory? Is he made Sec State or Sec War? I'd imagine so, though I could be wrong. Assuming TR is in Hughes's cabinet, I imagine the AH discussions ITTL where Wilson beats Hughes will nearly all have TR running in 1920 (having avoided his heart attack bought on by helping the US in the war effort).

I think Wilson is a likely nominee in 1920, if his 1919 stroke is butterflied away (it's intirely possible that the stress of preparing for a campaign could cause something similar to happen). If Wilson doesn't run, then William Mccadoo would be the best candidate for the dems if they want to run on a "return to normalcy" message (or something like it).

Alternatively, could Herbert Hoover join the Dems in this scenario? and could he become the 1920 presidencial candidate? IOTL, elements of both parties wanted him to run, though the Democrats seemed more favourable on the whole with the idea of Hoover as their candidate. This could be because they expected to lose in 1920 after 2 terms of Wilson and they felt they needed a popular candidate to stand a chance of winning. ITTL however, the Dems would be favoured, so I don't think Hoover would receive as much encouragement by the Democrats to run with them. Having said that I wouldn't rule him out intirely.
 
Top