no progressives in 1912

Taft gets a second term, obviously. The real interesting part comes in 1916. Who runs for the Republicans and Dems and how is American involvement in the Great War handled?
 
There's a good chance TR would run in 1916 if he didn't in 1912. He ran because he was pissed at Taft. Since Taft will not be running for a third term most likely, there is nothing keeping TR from running again. He'd have a better shot than in 1912, since he will likely be the Republican nominee, thus not splitting his own party.

TR in 1916 could be interesting. He'd be champing at the bit to get into the European war at the first opportunity. This will likely mean larger and earlier US aid to the Entente, and the US will likely be better prepared for the war when it comes.
 

Deleted member 1487

There's a good chance TR would run in 1916 if he didn't in 1912. He ran because he was pissed at Taft. Since Taft will not be running for a third term most likely, there is nothing keeping TR from running again. He'd have a better shot than in 1912, since he will likely be the Republican nominee, thus not splitting his own party.

TR in 1916 could be interesting. He'd be champing at the bit to get into the European war at the first opportunity. This will likely mean larger and earlier US aid to the Entente, and the US will likely be better prepared for the war when it comes.

Not necessarily. He could find himself stonewalled with such a blatant agenda, especially with some many divergent interests in the US. People would be less willing to accept his claims about Germany when he obviously had an agenda; Wilson was "Mr. Too Proud to Fight", so it was much more easy for the US to swallow the government's claims under his presidency than under a war monger.
 
Taft from everything that I know about him would probably follow a similar course to Wilson.

Somewhat. During the pre-war and war-years he was an advocate of peace and a 'League of Nations'-esque idea. However during the actual war itself Taft founded the League to Enforce Peace. He was a co-chairman of the powerful National War Labor Board between 1917 and 1918. Although he continually advocated peace, he strongly favored conscription once the United States entered the War, pleading publicly that the United States not fight a "finicky" war. He feared the war would be long, but was for fighting it out to a finish, given what he viewed as "Germany's brutality."

There's a good chance TR would run in 1916 if he didn't in 1912. He ran because he was pissed at Taft. Since Taft will not be running for a third term most likely, there is nothing keeping TR from running again. He'd have a better shot than in 1912, since he will likely be the Republican nominee, thus not splitting his own party.

TR in 1916 could be interesting. He'd be champing at the bit to get into the European war at the first opportunity. This will likely mean larger and earlier US aid to the Entente, and the US will likely be better prepared for the war when it comes.

Uh, what? If TR was elected in 1916 he wouldn't be President until March 4th, 1917. That only gives him eight months, tops, to 'better prepare' the US for war and get America involved in the European affair to begin with.

Now, given my comment above to JoeMulk, if Taft does institute a peace-time draft to prepare the US for war, it'd still be in a better position of preparedness than IOTL, and TR's job is much easier.
 
Uh, what? If TR was elected in 1916 he wouldn't be President until March 4th, 1917. That only gives him eight months, tops, to 'better prepare' the US for war and get America involved in the European affair to begin with.

Now, given my comment above to JoeMulk, if Taft does institute a peace-time draft to prepare the US for war, it'd still be in a better position of preparedness than IOTL, and TR's job is much easier.

Yeah, I forgot about the late inauguration. I agree with you about Taft. Maybe Roosevelt pushed for Taft to institute a draft after Roosevelt campaigned hard for him in 1912?
 
Yeah, I forgot about the late inauguration. I agree with you about Taft. Maybe Roosevelt pushed for Taft to institute a draft after Roosevelt campaigned hard for him in 1912?

Well, considering that IOTL Taft was for the draft, TR wouldn't have to push very hard ITTL.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
Somewhat. During the pre-war and war-years he was an advocate of peace and a 'League of Nations'-esque idea. However during the actual war itself Taft founded the League to Enforce Peace. He was a co-chairman of the powerful National War Labor Board between 1917 and 1918. Although he continually advocated peace, he strongly favored conscription once the United States entered the War, pleading publicly that the United States not fight a "finicky" war. He feared the war would be long, but was for fighting it out to a finish, given what he viewed as "Germany's brutality."



Uh, what? If TR was elected in 1916 he wouldn't be President until March 4th, 1917. That only gives him eight months, tops, to 'better prepare' the US for war and get America involved in the European affair to begin with.

Now, given my comment above to JoeMulk, if Taft does institute a peace-time draft to prepare the US for war, it'd still be in a better position of preparedness than IOTL, and TR's job is much easier.

So perhaps the US remains neutral and gets a peace time draft short term which is ended when the war ends on it's own.
 

Deleted member 1487

So perhaps the US remains neutral and gets a peace time draft short term which is ended when the war ends on it's own.

Good luck selling that to the American people. It isn't a good indication that America intends to stay neutral. It would be like having a draft now for no reason other than the potential that North Korea might invade the South. The American people won't stand for it.
 
I think Taft Wins:

loldumbmap.jpg

Taft is in Red, Wilson is in Blue
 
Taft gets a second term, obviously.


Most unlikely. The Republicans had suffered a crushing defeat in the 1910 midterms, and it is almost unheard of for a party to come back from such a defeat to win the ensuing presidential race. The only instance I can think of is 1948, and Taft was no Truman. Sorry, but Wilson still gets in.

If he has remained loyal to the ticket, TR's chances for 1916 are greatly enhanced. His eagerness to enter the European war might tell against him,, but OTOH he might well tone that down if he saw the White House in his grasp.
 
Last edited:

JoeMulk

Banned
Good luck selling that to the American people. It isn't a good indication that America intends to stay neutral. It would be like having a draft now for no reason other than the potential that North Korea might invade the South. The American people won't stand for it.

Wouldn't it just be like FDR's peacetime draft in 1940? The difference would be that this one would be ended before the US gets involved in a war.
 

Deleted member 1487

Wouldn't it just be like FDR's peacetime draft in 1940? The difference would be that this one would be ended before the US gets involved in a war.

There was already a history of the draft at that point and the nation was united in viewing certain nations as aggressive. They accepted that a strong military was necessary to preserve neutrality. In WW1 all these things are not true. Germany is not viewed by the majority of Americans as evil and a threat to the US. Also European matters were viewed as such and it was the navy that would be able to preserve American independence and neutrality, not the army. The only reason to institute a draft would be to build up an aggressive force for use elsewhere.
 
Top