No McKinley Assassaination: Candidates for 1904/1908?

McKinley is not assassinated in 1901, and serves out his term. Roosevelt, while popular, would have faced an uphill battle for the nomination. So, assuming he doesn’t get the nomination (if only to change things up a bit), who does each party nominate in 1904? And then, for the re-match in 1908, once there is a new incumbent?

This decade and the next are a bit of a crossroads as each party copes with and adapts to the force of the Progressive Movement, and any variety of different trajectories might be taken.
 
So, just to get the ball rolling:

If the Democrats nominate a Progressive (likely) and win (less likely), where does that put the GOP, even if they nominate someone like Teddy for 1908 (perhaps deciding to tap into hos charisma to win back the White House)? Would Teddy tack less Progressive, or would he charge on through?
 
Which means, with a million or more of "Bryan's people" going fishing on election day, the Republicans are assured of winning and can nominate virtually anyone they please. They'll probably look for someone not too different from McKinley.
 
Don't count on that. Before the assassination--that's right, within the first five months or so of his time as VP--there was a definite groundswell movement for TR for the presidency in 1904, even though no sitting VP had been nominated since Van Buren. I maintain, therefore, that the tickets in 1904 would be very similar if not outright the same as IOTL. The 1908 election would be slightly different, with TR and Fairbanks seeking re-election, perhaps against Bryan and Kern. Wouldn't have mattered: TR would have taken Bryan to school.

The kicker would have been 1912. Clearly there would have been no TR/Taft split as we know it; indeed, Taft might well have been on the Supreme Court by 1912. And the upheavals in the Taft administration would likely have been absent, meaning no shift to the Dems in Congress in 1910. Wilson might well have been the Dems' nominee in 1912, and could have opposed perhaps Hughes or Root (although the latter would have been a tough sell, given Root's connections with Wall Street). Still, I think there's a Republican in the White House when the July Crisis breaks in 1914, and the course of the Great War--if indeed there is a war--goes differently. It may not even start, if the president offers to mediate / provide a mediator at the outset.
 
Don't count on that. Before the assassination--that's right, within the first five months or so of his time as VP--there was a definite groundswell movement for TR for the presidency in 1904, even though no sitting VP had been nominated since Van Buren. I maintain, therefore, that the tickets in 1904 would be very similar if not outright the same as IOTL. The 1908 election would be slightly different, with TR and Fairbanks seeking re-election, perhaps against Bryan and Kern. Wouldn't have mattered: TR would have taken Bryan to school.

The kicker would have been 1912. Clearly there would have been no TR/Taft split as we know it; indeed, Taft might well have been on the Supreme Court by 1912. And the upheavals in the Taft administration would likely have been absent, meaning no shift to the Dems in Congress in 1910. Wilson might well have been the Dems' nominee in 1912, and could have opposed perhaps Hughes or Root (although the latter would have been a tough sell, given Root's connections with Wall Street). Still, I think there's a Republican in the White House when the July Crisis breaks in 1914, and the course of the Great War--if indeed there is a war--goes differently. It may not even start, if the president offers to mediate / provide a mediator at the outset.

Do you think the GOP could hold onto power from 1896-1916? Thats basically the FDR-Truman admins, at minimum.
 
John Hay might be a strong contender - mid sixties, held important office, trusted etc

He doesn't know that in OTL he drops dead in 1905

If he was nominated, internal energy is likely to give the appearance of health and he might well do a Zachary Taylor
 
Do you think the GOP could hold onto power from 1896-1916? Thats basically the FDR-Truman admins, at minimum.
On the strength and popularity of TR and his associates, yes--especially if there are no economic downturns and doubly so if war in Europe doesn't evolve from the July Crisis (a decided possibility with this succession of presidents).
 
Well, lets put this another way then: who are the Dems best shots, from either the Bourbon or Progressive camps, in 1904 and 1908, in a no-McKinley-assassination scenario?
 

bguy

Donor
John Hay might be a strong contender - mid sixties, held important office, trusted etc

He doesn't know that in OTL he drops dead in 1905

If he was nominated, internal energy is likely to give the appearance of health and he might well do a Zachary Taylor

The death of Hay's son, Adelbart, would presumably be butterflied ITTL and that would probably do a lot for Hay's mental and physical health, but did Hay actually have any presidential aspirations?

If not Hay, what about Ohio Senator Joseph Foraker? He's the right age, from the right state and has gubernatorial and senatorial experience.
 
Well, lets put this another way then: who are the Dems best shots, from either the Bourbon or Progressive camps, in 1904 and 1908, in a no-McKinley-assassination scenario?

The conservatives regained the upper hand in the Dems by 1904, meaning Bryan-or anyone allied closely-won't get a shot. It would mean either Alton Parker, as IOTL, or perhaps former SecState Richard Olney. William Randolph Hearst (yes, same as the newspapers) was a NY congressman who tried for the nomination but didn't make it. From all I can see, the Dems' field of candidates in 1904 was pretty weak, meaning it would have been all but a walkover for TR no matter what.

By 1908, though, the Bryan wing of the party was back in power. That would probably mean Bryan gets the nod again (IOTL, the other two candidates were pretty insignificant: former DE senator George Gray and MN governor John Johnson). I'll maintain TR would have turned Bryan every which way but loose, with entirely G-rated (by modern standards) but very creative English, and would have won a second term rather handily.

By 1912, not only is Bryan a three-time loser, but I could see him as something of a joke in his own party, much the way that Harold Stassen became IOTL. He won't have that much influence at the 1912 convention, so it'll come down to a dogfight between Wilson and Champ Clark. Without Bryan's opposition to Clark--a result of a Tammany Hall endorsement IOTL--Wilson has a tougher time. Even with Bryan's help, it took 46 ballots to give Wilson the nod; under these circumstances, I could see a deadlocked convention going for a compromise candidate, like Ohio's Judson Harmon (yes, I reconsidered my position earlier). Opposing Harmon will be Elihu Root, who could legitimately be called a Wall Street candidate. But with TR's backing, I think he could have pulled it off...narrowly. There was just enough of the progressive in Root to want him to have TR handy, and to continue a lot of TR's policies, albeit somewhat soft-pedaled.
 
The conservatives regained the upper hand in the Dems by 1904, meaning Bryan-or anyone allied closely-won't get a shot. It would mean either Alton Parker, as IOTL, or perhaps former SecState Richard Olney. William Randolph Hearst (yes, same as the newspapers) was a NY congressman who tried for the nomination but didn't make it. From all I can see, the Dems' field of candidates in 1904 was pretty weak, meaning it would have been all but a walkover for TR no matter what.

By 1908, though, the Bryan wing of the party was back in power. That would probably mean Bryan gets the nod again (IOTL, the other two candidates were pretty insignificant: former DE senator George Gray and MN governor John Johnson). I'll maintain TR would have turned Bryan every which way but loose, with entirely G-rated (by modern standards) but very creative English, and would have won a second term rather handily.

By 1912, not only is Bryan a three-time loser, but I could see him as something of a joke in his own party, much the way that Harold Stassen became IOTL. He won't have that much influence at the 1912 convention, so it'll come down to a dogfight between Wilson and Champ Clark. Without Bryan's opposition to Clark--a result of a Tammany Hall endorsement IOTL--Wilson has a tougher time. Even with Bryan's help, it took 46 ballots to give Wilson the nod; under these circumstances, I could see a deadlocked convention going for a compromise candidate, like Ohio's Judson Harmon (yes, I reconsidered my position earlier). Opposing Harmon will be Elihu Root, who could legitimately be called a Wall Street candidate. But with TR's backing, I think he could have pulled it off...narrowly. There was just enough of the progressive in Root to want him to have TR handy, and to continue a lot of TR's policies, albeit somewhat soft-pedaled.

I’m not personally convinced that the Dems would be in the same political situation if they’re not facing an incumbent TR.
 
I’m not personally convinced that the Dems would be in the same political situation if they’re not facing an incumbent TR.
Fair enough. But consider this: if one wing of any given party had taken the nomination two consecutive times and lost both, would you, as a member of that party (or the party as a whole) be inclined to go around a third consecutive time? I'd suggest it's just human nature to give a second chance, but not a third. Here's another thought: if Bryan couldn't beat McKinley, how much of a chance would he have had against a wildly popular, charismatic figure like TR?

Consider the situation in 1900:
1b66e78ccc400775217694e99fbaab07.jpg

Then tell me how you think Bryan would have fared against a man with that kind of positive baggage.
 
Elihu Root might be a possibility - funnily I had assumed he was Jewish, but he's Protestant (I guess I never came across anyone called Elihu elsewhere!). Secretary of War might not be the jumping point to a presidential run though

I looked at McKenna, and he's Catholic, so I don't think that the US is ready for a Catholic to run for president 60 years earlier than OTL

Henry Cabot Lodge might be worth a look
 
Elihu Root might be a possibility - funnily I had assumed he was Jewish, but he's Protestant (I guess I never came across anyone called Elihu elsewhere!). Secretary of War might not be the jumping point to a presidential run though

I looked at McKenna, and he's Catholic, so I don't think that the US is ready for a Catholic to run for president 60 years earlier than OTL

Henry Cabot Lodge might be worth a look


Myron T Herrick came up on another thread.

In 1904 he was Governor of Ohio, a state which was a better than average springboard for the Republican nomination.
 
Elihu Root might be a possibility - funnily I had assumed he was Jewish, but he's Protestant (I guess I never came across anyone called Elihu elsewhere!). Secretary of War might not be the jumping point to a presidential run though

I looked at McKenna, and he's Catholic, so I don't think that the US is ready for a Catholic to run for president 60 years earlier than OTL

Henry Cabot Lodge might be worth a look

I'd often thought of Root also--and more to the point, so did TR for 1908 IOTL. The problem: Root was very heavily identified with Wall Street. That would have made him a tough sell away from the Northeast and industrial Midwest. I suppose TR could have pulled it off; if he did it for Taft, he could do it for Root, albeit with more effort. But you'd have to convince Root: IOTL he begged off, citing poor health.

Cabot Lodge would have been entirely capable; his problem may well have been appeal to voters outside Massachusetts. Let's face it: he was every inch the patrician and intellectual (he taught at Harvard before Wilson ever got to Princeton), and IIRC, didn't suffer fools or lesser intellects readily. Like Root, getting him over the top would have taken some significant effort by his supporters.
 
I'd often thought of Root also--and more to the point, so did TR for 1908 IOTL. The problem: Root was very heavily identified with Wall Street. That would have made him a tough sell away from the Northeast and industrial Midwest. I suppose TR could have pulled it off; if he did it for Taft, he could do it for Root, albeit with more effort. But you'd have to convince Root: IOTL he begged off, citing poor health.

Cabot Lodge would have been entirely capable; his problem may well have been appeal to voters outside Massachusetts. Let's face it: he was every inch the patrician and intellectual (he taught at Harvard before Wilson ever got to Princeton), and IIRC, didn't suffer fools or lesser intellects readily. Like Root, getting him over the top would have taken some significant effort by his supporters.

I've always been fascinated by how Lodge was such good friends with Roosevelt, but couldn't stand Coolidge.
 
Top