November 2nd 1912 Woodrow Wilson's death in train derailment

[33k7]

you all think all the progressive that are still going to vote for Woodrow Wilson even after they hear or read about his death which could literally be the day before the election. I think with his death you drive down voter turnout for the Democrats and drive up turn out for Taft and Roosevelt .

for Taft a lot of New England and Midwestern conservatives are going to feel like they have a shot with the Democratic Presidential nominee dead.

and I can see Roosevelt eating into a large portion of progressives that were going to vote for Wilson. Roosevelt is the only other candidate that's going to stand up to business Taft isn't.

so this is the election results you think would happen A dead man still wins the plurality of the Electoral College but possibly not winning the majority of votes and the majority of states 🤔 or do you guys think he would win the election outright even though people have known for at least 24 hours he has die before voting?

Not true. Constitutionally, Electors can vote for whom they please, and are not limited to those persons whose names were on the ballot.

Also, these Electors won't cast their votes until 13 January 1913, so there's plenty of time for the Democratic National Committee to instruct them as to how they should vote. They might not all obey, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority would.

yeah the party bosses are going to tell them who to vote for.

An William Jennings Bryan is going to love that. I think he would be the one to approach Roosevelt with the option of taking Thomas R. Marshall as his VP in exchange for enough Progressive and Brian Democrat votes. the Republican party will probably want an assurance that he will not run for another term. if he agrees to that you probably have him take the presidency though he'll probably demand something of the Republicans in exchange eight-hour workday and possibly getting a child labor law passed federally

 

[Mikestone8]

yeah the party bosses are going to tell them who to vote for.

The Electors are chosen by the party bosses of their various states, and indeed quite a few of them may actually *be* party bosses.

And so far as they have a moral duty, it is to the *party*, not to an individual. If the Democratic leadership endorses Marshall (a virtual certainty) they have no reason not to vote for him. Indeed, most would probably do so even w/o instruction, since Marshall was the man nominated to be Wilson's successor should he die in office, and his claim to their support is just as strong in the case of a death before the election as after

As for the voters themselves, they still have their Congressmen and State officeholders to vote for, so they still have ample reason to turn out. Regarding the Presidency, even the most uneducated hillbilly knows that if a President dies his VP succeeds him. They will understand that Marshall "naturally" replaces Wilson. The more educated of course will understand the Electoral College system, and that a vote for Wilson will effectively be a vote for Marshall. Even if Democratic turnout drops a percentage point or two, only a handful of States are likely to switch columns, and these are mostly ones where Taft, not TR, is in second place

As for the idea of Bryan endorsing *any* Republican, that is just too wild to take seriously. He has been a Democrat all his life, and would take a dead Democrat over a live Republican w/o the slightest hesitation. For Pete's sake he even endorsed *Parker* against TR in 1904, though his differences wit Parker were far greater than any he may have with Marshall.

One other thing. If through some ASB intervention, the race *did* somehow go into he House, it would effectively be between Wilson and Taft. There are only an handful of Progressive Congressmen, so TR would be a distant third. The Republicans may contest a few ballots in the hope of re-electing Taft, but failing this they will abstain to allow the Democrats to "elect" Wilson, sooner than give TR a chance. Their differences with him have grown far too great. In practice of course, Wilson's death will result in Marshall being inaugurated in his place.

 

[Mynock]

Marshall wins, the poll needs a new option. This is still an election where the Democratic vote is relatively intact while the Republican vote is split, giving the Democrat an overwhelming advantage. Its basically impossible for them to lose outside of nominating the reincarnation of Jefferson Davis. The tipping point state for a Wilson victory was New York, which he won by 12.6%.
Worst case scenario for the Dems is it goes to the House. As of the 1912 House elections, Marshall would just win outright. The Democrats controlled a majority of states. Also in the event of a contingent election Roosevelt would be a non-factor owing to a complete of congressional representation. Establishment Republicans wouldn't back TR anyway, there was too much bad blood by this point, and Democrats certainly wouldn't back him over one of their own.

 

[33k7]

Marshall wins, the poll needs a new option. This is still an election where the Democratic vote is relatively intact while the Republican vote is split, giving the Democrat an overwhelming advantage. Its basically impossible for them to lose outside of nominating the reincarnation of Jefferson Davis. The tipping point state for a Wilson victory was New York, which he won by 12.6%.
Worst case scenario for the Dems is it goes to the House. As of the 1912 House elections, Marshall would just win outright. The Democrats controlled a majority of states. Also in the event of a contingent election Roosevelt would be a non-factor owing to a complete of congressional representation. Establishment Republicans wouldn't back TR anyway, there was too much bad blood by this point, and Democrats certainly wouldn't back him over one of their own.

voter turnout was down by 7.6% from the previous election in New York because of the Republican divide Wilson actually got less votes than William Jennings Bryan in 1908 and parker in 1904. with Wilson's death I can see maybe a 100,000 plus people not voting or changing their vote to Teddy Roosevelt and you're probably going to see more turnout from the conservatives in the state who felt disaffected and defeated I can see Taft winning the state in this scenario though it will be a close race Roosevelt will still come in third but he'll have over 400,000 votes what are Wilson and Taft will have over 500,000 votes each the election of 1912 had less turnout than the 1908 election basically a Million last people voted and there was a higher population to pull from in this election the majority of these people were disaffected Republicans the more conservative in nature.

a lot of the questions you brought up here I answered above

The Electors are chosen by the party bosses of their various states, and indeed quite a few of them may actually *be* party bosses.

And so far as they have a moral duty, it is to the *party*, not to an individual. If the Democratic leadership endorses Marshall (a virtual certainty) they have no reason not to vote for him. Indeed, most would probably do so even w/o instruction, since Marshall was the man nominated to be Wilson's successor should he die in office, and his claim to their support is just as strong in the case of a death before the election as after

As for the voters themselves, they still have their Congressmen and State officeholders to vote for, so they still have ample reason to turn out. Regarding the Presidency, even the most uneducated hillbilly knows that if a President dies his VP succeeds him. They will understand that Marshall "naturally" replaces Wilson. The more educated of course will understand the Electoral College system, and that a vote for Wilson will effectively be a vote for Marshall. Even if Democratic turnout drops a percentage point or two, only a handful of States are likely to switch columns, and these are mostly ones where Taft, not TR, is in second place

As for the idea of Bryan endorsing *any* Republican, that is just too wild to take seriously. He has been a Democrat all his life, and would take a dead Democrat over a live Republican w/o the slightest hesitation. For Pete's sake he even endorsed *Parker* against TR in 1904, though his differences wit Parker were far greater than any he may have with Marshall.

One other thing. If through some ASB intervention, the race *did* somehow go into he House, it would effectively be between Wilson and Taft. There are only an handful of Progressive Congressmen, so TR would be a distant third. The Republicans may contest a few ballots in the hope of re-electing Taft, but failing this they will abstain to allow the Democrats to "elect" Wilson, sooner than give TR a chance. Their differences with him have grown far too great. In practice of course, his death will result in Marshall being inaugurated in his place.

yeah William Jennings Bryan endorsed Parker because he was hoping to run again at this point he knows damn well he'll never have a shot to run for the presidency again
his relations with the party bosses of the democratic party were pretty tenuous at this point. and the odds are they nominate some Southerner Champ Clark Who Bryan made sure wasn't going to get the nomination. An Brian isn't endorsing a republican he's endorsing a progressive. with a democratic vice president who is a staunch prohibitionist. a political cause Bryan supported hell man the Democrats might get a 1 or 2 cabinet positions if they play their cards right. An promise Roosevelt some of his campaign promises some of which the Democrats already supported.

in the likelihood where it goes to the Congress no one will have the electoral votes needed to become president outright and if the Republicans refused to back Teddy Roosevelt the Republican party is dead they go down the same way the Federalist Party did. Party leadership knows this they're not going to do something so stupid.
the party leadership is going to demand something from Roosevelt you probably see the 22nd amendment become the 16th or 17th I think the Democrats would support something like this considering the only other politician that came close to running for a third term was another Republican Grant.

and the Democratic party is going to be reminded of Jackson's victory / defeat in 1824 do they really want to push their luck an possibly lose everything in 1914 and 1916.
no one knows what the future will bring and they're going to weigh their odds they're not going to go for a naked power grab (this is how it will be seen with your strategy!) that has a real shot of blowing up in their face. I think they go with give it to Roosevelt and let him divided the Republican Party further and we can increase our majorities in 1914 and in 1916 take the presidency and if anything goes wrong the buck stops with Roosevelt he is president after all.

I see Roosevelt easily taking the majority of states and popular vote though losing the electoral vote is the most likely scenario for this election ending.
Wilson taking the second place in popular vote State count and probably winning electoral vote
Taft coming in third on all accounts

 

[Mynock]

Look I just do not think you understand the dynamics at play here. This is the chain of events: Wilson dies and then Marshall becomes the Democratic nominee, though Wilson's name is left on the ballot, likely with a southern running mate. There are only three days, the logical move for the Democrats is to slide in the VP nod. I cannot be clear enough, it is going to be Marshall. There is no debate to be had here. Now in the real world the electoral and popular votes were:
435-88-8
41.8%-27.4%-23.2%
Your idea is that this, with the POD of Wilson's death on November 2 1912, could turn into a hung electoral college. I do not believe that this is possible. I do not see Democrats defecting to the Progressives, Marshall himself was a progressive and so would not be losing any votes on that front. There will not be a big swing to Roosevelt. There will not be a big surge in conservatives voting. I certainly don't see Bryan supporting Roosevelt over Marshall. At best you might see some close states flip because of voter confusion or the incredibly small minority of Democrats who a pro-Wilson but anti-Marshall. In addition historically, say in the 2000 Missouri Senate Election, dead men can and do win elections.

But I'll humour the idea and say there is a contingent election. As of the 1910 house elections (which elected the house that would be deciding the contingent election) of the 48 states Democrats controlled 23 states' delegations (Rhode Island's Republican Congressman died on funnily enough November 3), Republicans controlled 22 states' delegations and there were 3 with an even split. An absolute majority of 25 states would be necessary to win.
New Mexico seems to have fairly bog standard representatives from both parties, as does Maine. In Nebraska there are no likely Democratic defectors but of the three Republicans there is Charles W. Morris who was a Roosevelt supporter historically, though did not join the Progressive campaign. It is hard to see him voting TR when the result would be turn his state Democratic however. Either way Roosevelt doesn't have a chance in hell, it will be a compromise that lets Taft or Marshall in.

In case of deadlock things become more interesting, because as the Progressives were second up it would be a straight contest between whoever Marshall's running mate is and Hiram Johnson in the Senate. I believe Johnson would win this which makes things very interesting if the house can't decide.

 

[33k7]

Look I just do not think you understand the dynamics at play here. This is the chain of events: Wilson dies and then Marshall becomes the Democratic nominee, though Wilson's name is left on the ballot, likely with a southern running mate. There are only three days, the logical move for the Democrats is to slide in the VP nod. I cannot be clear enough, it is going to be Marshall. There is no debate to be had here. Now in the real world the electoral and popular votes were:
435-88-8
41.8%-27.4%-23.2%
Your idea is that this, with the POD of Wilson's death on November 2 1912, could turn into a hung electoral college. I do not believe that this is possible. I do not see Democrats defecting to the Progressives, Marshall himself was a progressive and so would not be losing any votes on that front. There will not be a big swing to Roosevelt. There will not be a big surge in conservatives voting. I certainly don't see Bryan supporting Roosevelt over Marshall. At best you might see some close states flip because of voter confusion or the incredibly small minority of Democrats who a pro-Wilson but anti-Marshall. In addition historically, say in the 2000 Missouri Senate Election, dead men can and do win elections.

But I'll humour the idea and say there is a contingent election. As of the 1910 house elections (which elected the house that would be deciding the contingent election) of the 48 states Democrats controlled 23 states' delegations (Rhode Island's Republican Congressman died on funnily enough November 3), Republicans controlled 22 states' delegations and there were 3 with an even split. An absolute majority of 25 states would be necessary to win.
New Mexico seems to have fairly bog standard representatives from both parties, as does Maine. In Nebraska there are no likely Democratic defectors but of the three Republicans there is Charles W. Morris who was a Roosevelt supporter historically, though did not join the Progressive campaign. It is hard to see him voting TR when the result would be turn his state Democratic however. Either way Roosevelt doesn't have a chance in hell, it will be a compromise that lets Taft or Marshall in.

In case of deadlock things become more interesting, because as the Progressives were second up it would be a straight contest between whoever Marshall's running mate is and Hiram Johnson in the Senate. I believe Johnson would win this which makes things very interesting if the house can't decide.

I think you're putting your fingers in your ears and Whistling Dixie. So let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Mikestone8]

An Brian isn't endorsing a republican he's endorsing a progressive

Same thing. TR has been a Republican all his life and has never had a good word for the Democratic Party. Calling himself a "Progressive" changes nothing - for Democrats he is just another Republican. Neither Bryan nor any other Democrat has the slightest reason to favour him - especially when in Marshall, they have a perfectly good candidate of their own. Like Wilson, Marshall is nicely in the political centre, perceived (rightly or wrongly) as more progressive than Taft and less radical than TR - the classical "safe pair of hands".

in the likelihood where it goes to the Congress no one will have the electoral votes needed to become president outright and if the Republicans refused to back Teddy Roosevelt the Republican party is dead they go down the same way the Federalist Party did.

What on earth makes you think that? They have been out of office twice under Cleveland and come back both times, so they have every prospect of doing so after one, or at most two, terms of Marshall. They are not in the slightest danger of disappearing.

they're not going to go for a naked power grab (this is how it will be seen with your strategy!)

Why. They have won the election. That's a certainty. They could lose every state which Wilson carried by 10% or less and *still* have 300-plus electoral votes. Why should they consider giving away their victory to a Republican?

At best you might see some close states flip because of voter confusion or the incredibly small minority of Democrats who a pro-Wilson but anti-Marshall.

Indeed, might Marshall actually do *better* than did Wilson?

As has been observed, in almost every state outside New England, Wilson's popular vote was lower than Bryan's had been in 1908. I haven't seen any analysis of where this shortfall occurred, but would suspect that Wilson was just a shade too "establishment" in background for some of Bryan's faithful[1]. Voters like that might well find the less genteel Marshall more to their liking. They would certainly prefer him to an eastern fat cat like TR.

[1] If this assumption is correct, then Eugene Debs, who, iirc, was a Bryan Democrat before turning Socialist, is the likeliest beneficiary of the drop.

 

[Mynock]

I think you're putting your fingers in your ears and Whistling Dixie. So let's just agree to disagree.

So you don't have anything to back your idea up, OK.

Indeed, might Marshall actually do *better* than did Wilson?

As has been observed, in almost every state outside New England, Wilson's popular vote was lower than Bryan's had been in 1908. I haven't seen any analysis of where this shortfall occurred, but would suspect that Wilson was just a shade too "establishment" in background for some of Bryan's faithful. Voters like that might well find the less genteel Marshall more to their liking. They would certainly prefer him to a eastern fat cat like TR.

This is why the talk of New York flipping confuses me. Wilson actually got less votes than the Democrats did in 1908, 1904 and 1900. And unless New York flips its a win for Marshall.
Interesting that you mention New England though, those states were all very close.

 

[33k7]

So you don't have anything to back your idea up, OK.

No just wise enough not to argue with someone who's already made up their mind. Now I'm going to get back to having a great time with my kids.👍

 

[Mikestone8]

No just wise enough not to argue with someone who's already made up their mind.

Minds are made up because they see the reality of the situation. You had the makings of a perfectly good thread about a Marshall Presidency, but messed it up because for some reason you insisted on dragging Taft and TR into the picture, when in reality they wouldn't have been in the running.

It might be an idea to try the search button, as the 1912 election is one of the most written-about events on this forum. Lots of people here have looked at it in detail.

 

[Mikestone8]

Interesting that you mention New England though, those states were all very close.

And they won NH again in 1916 - the first time they had carried it in a straight fight since before the Civil War.

For some reason they were doing exceptionally well there during the Wilson years.

 

[Nivek]

So Wilson VP won,them what

 

[Mikestone8]

So Wilson VP won,them what

Probably not a great deal. VP's rarely make a huge difference to election results.

Of course if they get promoted to the head of the ticket (as Marshall would have been in the OP situation) that is quite another matter.

 

[Mynock]

So Wilson VP won,them what

Probably not a great deal. VP's rarely make a huge difference to election results.

Of course if they get promoted to the head of the ticket (as Marshall would have been in the OP situation) that is quite another matter.

I could see the road to war proceeding in a similar way to OTL, Marshall was generally supportive of Wilson's moves in that arena. Post-war he supported the League of Nations as a concept with caveats, such as making the controversial tenth argument non-binding, though whether this would be enough to ensure US participation isn't something I'd feel comfortable making a judgement on. I also think the single six-year term amendment probably gets passed, IIRC the incumbent president was grandfathered in so Marshall would be able to run for re-election in 1916 to the first of these six-year terms. I don't think Marshall would have segregated the federal workforce. Otherwise I'm not sure. I see Marshall winning in 1916, with the 1922 election seeing a Republican victory.

 

[Mikestone8]

I could see the road to war proceeding in a similar way to OTL, Marshall was generally supportive of Wilson's moves in that arena.

He was consistently loyal to the Administration, but didn't necessarily always agree privately.

Note his comments about the Lusitania. While saddened by the American deaths, he pointedly added that by taking passage on a British ship they were in effect setting foot on British soil. and had to accept that by doing this in wartime they were knowingly putting themselves at risk. He compared it to an experience in Montana when he had missed his train because of a gunfight in the street, taking the view that he had a perfect right to use the street, gunfight or no gunfight, but that commonsense had dictatd otherwise. .

This ruffled a few feathers and gave rise to reports of a rift with the President, which he indignantly denied, affiming his "total confidence in our leader." However, afaik he never actually retracted his prevvious words, though precisely how he reconciled them with this latter statement is a bit of a mystery.

All in all, his note to Germany might well have been soft enough that Bryan didn't resign.

One big question. Would hae have supported the Gore-McLemore Resolution? Afaik he didn't OTL, but on his record he would have been reluctant to take public position so much at variance with the President's.

In addition he almost certainly not have intervened in Mexico, observing in March 1915 that Americans wouldn't have appreciated foreign intervention in their civil war, and in all probabiity the Mexicans felt the same way. So relations with Mexico may be a lot better, and the Zimmrmann note may be butterflied.


All in all, his attitude suggests that he did not altogether share Wison's view, while trying to be a loyal colleague,

 

[Mikestone8]

He was consistently loyal to the Administration, but didn't necessarily always agree privately.

Further to the above, he made some very tart remarks about those who advoated war.

In his March 1915 speech, he expresssed doubts as to how many enthusiasts for war would actually enlist to fight in it, as opposed to mking a quich buck from sales to the War Department. In the Lusitaia one he observed that if anyyone was keen to join in the European war, there were perfectly good recruiting stations in Lonndon, Paris, Berlin, Vienna and St Petersburg, and that anyone wishing to fight had only to book a passage across the Atlantic and report to any of these.

I also think the single six-year term amendment probably gets passed, IIRC the incumbent president was grandfathered in so Marshall would be able to run for re-election in 1916 to the first of these six-year terms.

I'm not so sure. Iirc the "grandfather" exception was *suggested*, but didn't actually appear in the Amendment as adopted by the Senate. It could of course heve been added by the HoR had the Amendment ever reached there, but this would have been a bit of a gamble, since it had passed the Senate by a bare 47-23, hence if the change led to a single defection, then the whole Amendment could have been lost.