No Hoover in 1928?

In a timeline I attempted to start when I joined this forum I had Hoover get involved in a non-fatal car accident that stopped him from being the republican candidate, but he endorses his OT VP Curtis as the candidate who goes on to lose to Smith. I was wondering if this was plausible and what the effects would be. I had the timeline planned out but I started second guessing and so I decided to shelf it and do this thread to help flesh out the idea more.
 
Curtis loses 1928 to Smith, Smith in turn takes the hit for the GD, and some progressive Republican beats him in 1932 (Herbert Hoover?)

Republicans rule from 1932- 1940, where Hoover's VP loses to some Conservative Democrat (Cordell Hull, John N. Garner) If its Hull, USA goes into WWII as IOTL, if its Garner, probably not.

This list may happen:
1929- 1933: Al Smith (Democratic)
1933- 1941: Herbert Hoover (Republican)
1941- 1949: Cordell Hull (Democratic)
1949- 1957: Thomas Dewey (Republican)
1957- 1965: Richard Russell (Democratic)
1965- 1969: Henry M. Jackson (Democratic)
1969- 1977: Nelson Rockefeller (Republican)
1977- 1981: George H.W. Bush (Republican)

1981- 1989: Robert F. Kennedy (Democratic)
1989- 1993: Dick Gephart (Democratic)

1993- 2001: Susan Collins (Republican)
2001- 2009: Samuel Nunn (Democratic)
2009-: Rudy Giuliani (Republican)

So the Dems become the Conservative Party, and the GOP becomes the liberal Party.
 
That's quite different from what happened in my plan; the essential plan was that the democrats would end up being put in a situation not unlike what the republican party went through in the 50s and 60s where radicals could gain prominence much more easily only in this case it being leftist radicals. The line I had was essentially this;

1928-1933 Al Smith (Democrat)
1933-1941 Herbert Hoover (Republican)
1941-1949 John D. Rockefeller Jr. (Republican)
1949-1953 Douglas Macarthur (Republican)
1953-1957 Upton Sinclair (Democrat)
1957-1965 John F Kennedy (Democrat)
During the period from Macarthur onwards the two parties have been experiencing severe internal strife with the republicans fighting between the conservative faction under a much more conservative LBJ and moderate republican Truman, while the democratic party had moderate JFK vs the socialist faction under Walter Reuther. Both of the radical factions split into Kennedy's second term, with minor revisions to the Electorial college law to accomdate the change. The new parties are the American and Socialist parties. Following this we have-
1965-1969 Lyndon Johnson (American)
1969-1973 Nelson Rockefeller (Republican)
1973-1981 George McGovern (Socialist)
1981-1989 Ronald Reagan (Democrat)
1989-1993 Jesse Jackson (Democrat)
1993-2001 John Mccain (Republican)
2001-2005 Bill Clinton (Socialist)
2005-Present Frank Collin

I will admit that after Reagan I was doing alot of guess work.

 
I think that the Democrat loses in 1928, America looked prosperous and Republicans claimed the credit, plus if Smith were the candidate there would be the Catholic problem
 
I think that the Democrat loses in 1928, America looked prosperous and Republicans claimed the credit, plus if Smith were the candidate there would be the Catholic problem

Their claims of success were boosted by Hoover's involvement in the government, Curtis can't claim any involvement and was also a rather un-charismatic politician.
 
Either way the Stock Market still tanks. Maybe not in 29 on schedule, but it was a house of cards just waiting for that last little bit of short selling etc.
 
That's the point, only a different party takes the flak.

I don't think the Democrats would take the brunt of the flak. After all, the GOP did oversee what led to the Depression and I do think that Smith, while unwilling to go New Deal, would do some intervention and more than anything Hoover did in the OTL. But I do think that Smith's not being able to get the nation out of the Depression would draw some flak and Hoover, given time to think, could become interventionist unlike in the OTL (after all, he began to be interventionist near the end of his term in the OTL; with time to see the Depression unfold, he could get the opinion of intervention in he ran agaisnt Smith in 1932). So the blame could be a bit more evenly spread. However, I'm not sure Hoover can beat out Smith. I'm not sure Hoover would actually be more interventionist than Smith, if he decided to be interventionist, and Smith still wouldn't bear the brunt of the blame; it'd just be that things out of his control happened. Then again, it could end up a Carter thing with Smith where he didn't cause the problems, but got the blame for it
 
I don't think the Democrats would take the brunt of the flak. After all, the GOP did oversee what led to the Depression and I do think that Smith, while unwilling to go New Deal, would do some intervention and more than anything Hoover did in the OTL. But I do think that Smith's not being able to get the nation out of the Depression would draw some flak and Hoover, given time to think, could become interventionist unlike in the OTL (after all, he began to be interventionist near the end of his term in the OTL; with time to see the Depression unfold, he could get the opinion of intervention in he ran agaisnt Smith in 1932). So the blame could be a bit more evenly spread. However, I'm not sure Hoover can beat out Smith. I'm not sure Hoover would actually be more interventionist than Smith, if he decided to be interventionist, and Smith still wouldn't bear the brunt of the blame; it'd just be that things out of his control happened. Then again, it could end up a Carter thing with Smith where he didn't cause the problems, but got the blame for it

After Smith's term ends I can't see the american public voting for him regardless of what led up to the depression, in their mind it's all Smith's fault, not to mention Hoover's name would still be shining gold. To further describe his economic policy I saw him putting in something similar to a smaller version of the new deal and enacting a sort of forced voluntarism in which he still asks the major companies to help end the depression but is forceful enough to actually result in their being some aid. As for foreign policy I could see Hoover as being isolationist first term, but in the second term he's likely to start asking congress to invest more into manufacturing weapons aswell as increasing the budgets of the navy, airforce, and army in preperation for a potential war with Hitler, although there will be no lend-lease aid.
 
Top