If no WWII, does FDR run in '40?

Yeah, he'd be 69. Still, he was planning on running in 1940 and, as I said, he had FDR's public backing until he decided to run for a third term.
 
Given the depth of the New Deal coalition, I think Farley could have won. Anyway, if Farley isn't the nominee, then the other likely candidate was Cordell Hull (who did get Roosevelt's public support before he wound up committing to running himself).

Either Farley or Hull or Paul V McNutt or Alben Barkley seem like plausible choices, as they were all closely associated with the administration (FDR had once thought Harry Hopkins might be his successor, before Hopkins became too ill.)

What is unlikely is a genuine non-New Dealer getting the nod. Ironically, the serving vice president was the highest profile of that lot.

admkenshin said:
What worked in OTL was the service economy, as you probably know. People went to McDonalds instead of going out for a picnic.

Have you not seen Memphis Belle?
 
Actually I think FDR probably could not have won a third term if not for World War 2. I remember that there was some polling by Gallup showing that FDR would lose in 1940 if the war had ended before the November Election Date.

That sounds like a very ill defined question Gallup was asking. There's no way that the US electorate would be particularly sanguine about Europe if this hypothetical peace was on Hitler's terms, which it almost certainly would have been. No cessation of hostilities in late 1940 was going see a return to the old equilibrium.

Or, to sum it up in four simple words: Churchill deposed in coup.

I don't know why people think 1940's Gallup was infallible. They barely conducted any polls (compared to today), and their presidential approval ratings used to end months out from the election (Nate Silver recently observed that the last approve/disapprove for FDR before his final election is from late 1943.)
 
Polling doesn't get reliable until the 50s IMO. Methodology was C-R-A-P, (as seen in '48 IOTL) because most reliably Democratic blue-collars did not own phones in those days. So if you're only polling people with phones (middle class or wealthy), you might as well pull the numbers out of your posterior. I don't doubt the Catholic numbers though. Remember what FDR said: "Leo, this is a Protestant country and Catholics and Jews are here on sufferance."
 
My small contributions to this interesting discussion:
1. I think the imminent prospect of war was the largest single reason why FDR decided to run in 1940 and the largest reason why he won. FDR thought he was indispensible and a majority of the electorate agreed with him.
2. Even if FDR decides not to run, I think Wilkie is still the likely GOP candidate. The Taft and Dewey forces were equally balanced and a midwestern internationalist like Wilkie appealed to just enough of each side to create a vialble candidacy. Add to this the fact that Wilkie was (at least in 1940 terms) a tremendously charismatic individual and that he had major support in the press (sometimes due to affairs with female reporters and friendships with male editors and reporters).
3. The Democratic nominee is harder to predict. FDR may have said nice things about Hull but he was old, a southern segregationist and spoke with a lisp. Farley was a political fixer who had never been elected to any post and McNutt was (at least according to some books I have read) suspected of being corrupt from his time as Governor of Indiana. After a brokered convention and several favorite sons/dark horses (such as Murphy of Michigan, Truman of Missouri, Wallace of Iowa and Byrnes of S.C.) being considered, I am going to say that this ticket is Hull and McNutt.
4. Wilkie wins a solid but not overwhelming victory based on his promises to preserve the major achievements of the New Deal such as Social Security and the Wagner Act but to run an efficient administration and to reduce the deficit and taxes. Foreign policy is not a major issue as both Wilkie and Hull promise to continue rebuilding the armed forces and to reduce trade barriers.
 
Polling doesn't get reliable until the 50s IMO. Methodology was C-R-A-P, (as seen in '48 IOTL) because most reliably Democratic blue-collars did not own phones in those days. So if you're only polling people with phones (middle class or wealthy), you might as well pull the numbers out of your posterior. I don't doubt the Catholic numbers though.

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/The-Gallup-Organization-Company-History.html

"Gallup continued to refine his techniques, determined to avoid the large margin of error in his polling of the 1936 election. He no longer relied on mail ballots, because higher-income voters were more likely to return them, which he felt would favor Republican candidates. He sent his people into the field to interview respondents, with quotas based on demographic categories, such as age, sex, geography, and income. The interviewers, however, were given too much latitude. Rather than embarrass respondents by asking their age or income, they often guessed. Interviewers also tended to seek out respondents with whom they felt most comfortable, with the result that working-class interviewers and white-collar interviewers were getting different results. Overall, the Gallup Poll was displaying a systematic bias in favor of Republican positions over Democratic ones, enough to prompt Congress to call in Gallup to explain his election results of 1940 and 1944 that underestimated the Democratic vote in two-thirds of the states. A technical committee criticized him for using a quota system instead of 'probability' sampling, a method that would give everyone a equal chance of being included in a poll. However, probability sampling was both complicated and extremely expensive. Gallup felt that the difference between quota and probability sampling was not large enough to justify the cost."


Anyway, my point about Kennedy and West Virginia stands. Appalachian society was basically stuck in the pre-war era when JFK won there in 1960.
 
I don't think Roosevelt runs for a third term if he doesn't have a World War pushing him to do so. IIRC, he was a tad bit hesitant to do so IOTL (though this hesitation flew out the window as it became patently obvious war was inevitable), and with the war as his main motivation for seeking a third term, I'm not sure if you can get him to seek another.

This of course, means that the Democrats are going to have to seek a new standard bearer. John Nance Garner will be angling for the nomination from the right, though by 1940, he has no chance of actually being nominated by the party organization, which by that time, was firmly in the New Deal camp. Farley will probably make a bid, but he's a Catholic, and while that plays well with the Northern base of the Democrats, it doesn't with the party's Southern base--and let's not forget that 1928 and 1940 aren't as far a part as were 1928 and 1960. I still don't think Farley can get the nomination, let alone win a general election.

Roosevelt was determined to see someone after his own heart succeed him in office, and a lot of the people he floated the idea to turned him down. Harry Hopkins, the Secretary of Commerce and head of the WPA, is an obvious choice--he has the credibility of having been a key architect of the New Deal and a Roosevelt confident. Then again, Hopkins never really worked well with Congress, so that's going to be a surefire thorn in his side when it comes to him trying to secure the nomination. William O. Douglas, at the time a Supreme Court Justice, was also considered by Roosevelt as a potential successor, though his anti-segregation voting record on the court might be enough to scare off his chance of ever being nominated.

Robert H. Jackson, the Attorney General and later SCOTUS Justice during Roosevelt's third term, is also a possibility. He was a strong New Dealer and fellow New Yorker, and Roosevelt had favoritism for him as well. These choices were all personally acceptable to Roosevelt, though IOTL, none of them showed any bit of interest in running for President. Henry Wallace will probably make his own bid for the White House, though again, it's unlikely he'll ever be nominated by the party organization.

Of course, there's always Harry Truman and Alben Barkley as well. Barkley has a relatively clean, middle of the road record--strong support for the New Deal to placate the unions and the liberals, inoffensive, quiet moves on Civil Rights to placate the South. Truman is still at this point a virtual unknown, so I would chalk one up for Barkley in the event of such a contest.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are going to be more unified and coherent in 1940 with no war to worry about. Dewey won't stand a chance of nomination, and Wendell Willkie will be but a memory, an obscure political footnote. Bob Taft is likely the Republican nominee in 1940, and IMHO, the next President of the United States.

Why? Well, without a war to shift the nation's attention away from the slow (albeit picking up) recovery in the wake of Roosevelt's disastrous attempt to balance the budget and reorganize the Supreme Court, the 'Roosevelt Recession' is still fresh on the public's minds. Taft probably beats his Democratic opponent relatively handily, and then proceeds, with the help of a Republican Congress, to dismantle the entire New Deal. Social Security, which hasn't even begun paying out to most of it's constituency, is the first to die, followed by the regulations placed into effect in the wake of the Great Crash of 1929.
 
I don't think Roosevelt runs for a third term if he doesn't have a World War pushing him to do so. IIRC, he was a tad bit hesitant to do so IOTL (though this hesitation flew out the window as it became patently obvious war was inevitable), and with the war as his main motivation for seeking a third term, I'm not sure if you can get him to seek another.

This of course, means that the Democrats are going to have to seek a new standard bearer. John Nance Garner will be angling for the nomination from the right, though by 1940, he has no chance of actually being nominated by the party organization, which by that time, was firmly in the New Deal camp. Farley will probably make a bid, but he's a Catholic, and while that plays well with the Northern base of the Democrats, it doesn't with the party's Southern base--and let's not forget that 1928 and 1940 aren't as far a part as were 1928 and 1960. I still don't think Farley can get the nomination, let alone win a general election.

Roosevelt was determined to see someone after his own heart succeed him in office, and a lot of the people he floated the idea to turned him down. Harry Hopkins, the Secretary of Commerce and head of the WPA, is an obvious choice--he has the credibility of having been a key architect of the New Deal and a Roosevelt confident. Then again, Hopkins never really worked well with Congress, so that's going to be a surefire thorn in his side when it comes to him trying to secure the nomination. William O. Douglas, at the time a Supreme Court Justice, was also considered by Roosevelt as a potential successor, though his anti-segregation voting record on the court might be enough to scare off his chance of ever being nominated.

Robert H. Jackson, the Attorney General and later SCOTUS Justice during Roosevelt's third term, is also a possibility. He was a strong New Dealer and fellow New Yorker, and Roosevelt had favoritism for him as well. These choices were all personally acceptable to Roosevelt, though IOTL, none of them showed any bit of interest in running for President. Henry Wallace will probably make his own bid for the White House, though again, it's unlikely he'll ever be nominated by the party organization.

Of course, there's always Harry Truman and Alben Barkley as well. Barkley has a relatively clean, middle of the road record--strong support for the New Deal to placate the unions and the liberals, inoffensive, quiet moves on Civil Rights to placate the South. Truman is still at this point a virtual unknown, so I would chalk one up for Barkley in the event of such a contest.
The further South you are, the less chance you have at the nomination. Southern Democrats were just forces to balance out the tickets to keep the Dixiecrats in line. That was all. No good Northern, Midwestern and Western Democrat would allow a Southern Democrat to head the ticket if it could be helped. The only two Southern Democrats of the 20th century to head the tickets in the OTL when the Democrats were still a big tent (we'll call this roughly 1900 to 1980 or so) were Truman and Johnson, both of whom achieved office upon the death of the President they served under.

Barkley may be north enough to have somewhat of a shot. Truman, however, isn't going to get it.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are going to be more unified and coherent in 1940 with no war to worry about. Dewey won't stand a chance of nomination, and Wendell Willkie will be but a memory, an obscure political footnote. Bob Taft is likely the Republican nominee in 1940, and IMHO, the next President of the United States.

Why? Well, without a war to shift the nation's attention away from the slow (albeit picking up) recovery in the wake of Roosevelt's disastrous attempt to balance the budget and reorganize the Supreme Court, the 'Roosevelt Recession' is still fresh on the public's minds. Taft probably beats his Democratic opponent relatively handily, and then proceeds, with the help of a Republican Congress, to dismantle the entire New Deal. Social Security, which hasn't even begun paying out to most of it's constituency, is the first to die, followed by the regulations placed into effect in the wake of the Great Crash of 1929.
The Republicans will have problems of their own, and will not get elected in 1940. Firstly, there is a division between Dewey Liberals and Taft Conservatives which will divide the party heavily in this era. Secondly, the electorate of the United States will not be friendly to the GOP, nor Taft especially for the very things you mention Taft likely to do. The GOP represented big business, which the populace still blamed for the Depression, and Taft was against the New Deal measures the populace liked and which had ensured recovery (if gradual) over Roosevelt's administration. The Court packing deal and the recession will still be there, but keep in mind it only had a limited effect as it was in 1940 of the OTL, and that the nation was already recovering when FDR went back on track following 1937 and if I recall correctly recovery was actually at a faster pace following it.
If the GOP runs Taft, they'll be running what the public will percieve as Hoover in caricature form, and therefore won't have a snowball's chance at winning. If they run a moderate or Liberal who would run with the pledge of that faction that they weren't against the ideas of the New Deal, just their handling, the GOP could come close and perhaps have a fair shot at victory.
 

Bearcat

Banned
Garner ran as the incumbent VP against FDR in '40. If FDR is out, any chance he could win? (FDR found him insufficiently loyal to the New Deal and stacking of the SCOTUS).
 
Garner ran as the incumbent VP against FDR in '40. If FDR is out, any chance he could win? (FDR found him insufficiently loyal to the New Deal and stacking of the SCOTUS).
No, for a few factors. First, he was anti-New Deal and I believe anti-anything resembling the New Deal, which means no voter who doesn't own a multi-million dollar corporation will give him a second thought. Secondly, he was Vice President and nobody really paid any attention to who was VP back then, so he's not going to be well known (for example, a frequently asked question even 20 odd years later when JFK was shot and Johnson took office was "who the hell is Lyndon Johnson?"). Thirdly, he was a Southerner; Southerner's were just there to balance out the tickets.
 
The only two Southern Democrats of the 20th century to head the tickets in the OTL when the Democrats were still a big tent (we'll call this roughly 1900 to 1980 or so)

I would bring the end of that era back a couple of terms before 1980, if I were you.


Emperor Norton I said:
were Truman and Johnson, both of whom achieved office upon the death of the President they served under.

Nitpick: Truman's Southerness is a point of contention. He's really a border stater, a Democrat who faced viable Republicans back home (his seat went to the GOP at the first general election after he vacated it.)

I've read that his mother-in-law was very Republican.

Emperor Norton I said:
Barkley may be north enough to have somewhat of a shot. Truman, however, isn't going to get it.

Truman is a non-starter as a freshman senator--yet Barkley doesn't quite have the same stature he would later achieve as VP.

Though if Hull isn't up to it Barkley is probably the best compromise choice.
 
I would bring the end of that era back a couple of terms before 1980, if I were you.
The politics of the time between the New Deal Coalition's full strength and the Reagan Era are a bit complicated, but the New Deal coalition really held on until the Reagan era, even if a shadow of it's former self. Certainly the Dixiecrats moved with increasing vigor to the GOP fold, and transitions began following successes by the Nixon Coalition in between that time, but the Democrats really held a good deal of unity until Reagan made the South relatively Red and courted the blue collar middle class.

Nitpick: Truman's Southerness is a point of contention. He's really a border stater, a Democrat who faced viable Republicans back home (his seat went to the GOP at the first general election after he vacated it.)

I've read that his mother-in-law was very Republican.
It depends on how the average voter would take it. A border stater can win; a Southerner can't, and I don't think Missouri's North enough to give him a lead on a ticket.


Truman is a non-starter as a freshman senator--yet Barkley doesn't quite have the same stature he would later achieve as VP.

Though if Hull isn't up to it Barkley is probably the best compromise choice.
Barkley wields the hammer in the Senate, and positions like that make political Lion's of men, albeit not always (and frankly, not often) Presidents.
 
The politics of the time between the New Deal Coalition's full strength and the Reagan Era are a bit complicated, but the New Deal coalition really held on until the Reagan era, even if a shadow of it's former self. Certainly the Dixiecrats moved with increasing vigor to the GOP fold, and transitions began following successes by the Nixon Coalition in between that time, but the Democrats really held a good deal of unity until Reagan made the South relatively Red and courted the blue collar middle class.

Yes, that's accurate, but I was responding to you saying, "The only two Southern Democrats of the 20th century to head the tickets in the OTL when the Democrats were still a big tent (we'll call this roughly 1900 to 1980 or so)." I just think that Jimmy Carter qualifies as a Southerner circa 1900 to 1980, that's all.;)

Emperor Norton I said:
Barkley wields the hammer in the Senate, and positions like that make political Lion's of men, albeit not always (and frankly, not often) Presidents.

Before the fifties the position of senate majority leader was merely a party caucus administrative job, a lowly floor manager, there was little prestige in it. Then Robert Taft took the job at the beginning of the Eisenhower era, bringing his weight to the position--and in 1955 LBJ came in and quietly transformed senate majority leader into a position worthy of the America of the imperial presidency.
 
Top